Loading...
May 17, 2018 - Transcript of Rate Commission Technical ConferenceExhibit MSD 52 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 51171201e 1 2 3 4 6 MEETING OF THE RATE COMMISSION OF THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT 2018 STORMWATER RATE CHANGE PROCEEDING 7 8 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 9 MAY 17, 2018 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 Reported by: 19 BETH O. ZINK, RPR, CCR, CSR ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES 20 711 North 11th Street St. Louis, Missouri 63101 21 (314)644-2191 22 23 24 25 ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Page 1 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 2 MICHAEL GORMAN 5 Questions by Questions by 6 Questions by Questions by 7 Questions by Questions by 8 Questions by Questions by 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ;7 18 19 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Palans Ziegler Goss Ziegler Brockmann Commissioner Goss Chairman Toenjes Ms. Stump PAMELA LEMO:NE Questions Questions Questions Questions Questions Questions Questions Questions Questions by by by by by by by by by NICOLE YOUNG Questions Questions 20 Questions Questions 21 Questions Questions 22 Questions 23 24 25 Commissioner Palans Commissioner Mahfood Commissioner Goss Commissioner Ratzki Ms. Myers Mr. Neuschafer Commissioner Brockmann Commissioner Schoedel Chairman Toenjes by Commissioner by Commissioner by Commissioner by Commissioner by Commissioner by Commissioner by Commissioner Schoedel M..Y.foor: Palans Ratzki Goss Bresnan_ Goss -2 27 29 32 33 35 36 38 LL 46 49 59 61 66 75 77 77 80 81 84 96 97 127 129 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 1 INDEX CONTINUED 2 3 4 NICOLE YOUNG Page 3 5 Questions by Ms. Myers 130 Questions by Mr. Neuschafer 133 6 Questions by Ms. Stump 138 Questions by Commissioner Palans 139 7 Questions by Chairman Toenjes 142 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 www.alaris.us ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 1 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/1712018 Page 4 APPEARANCES 2 3 4 Lisa Stump, Attorney at Law Brian J. Malone, Attorney at Law 5 Lashly & Baer, P.C. 714 Locust Street 6 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 (314) 621-2939 7 l st ^aer ,.zr_tp �_ a s :� � v.� . ccm bmalone@lashlybaer.com 8 FOR: The Rate Commission 9 Brandon Neuschafer, Attorney at Law Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner 10 One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 ;1 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 (314)259-2050 12 brandon.neuscha=er@bryancave.con EO:c• Missouri Industrial Energy 13 s Consumers 14 Susan M. Myers, General Counse_L Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District �5 235C Market Street St. Louis, Missouri 63103 16 (314)768-6209 srnyers@stimsd.com _ 1 FOR: Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 2 3 4 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Leonard Toenjes, Chair Mickey Croyle Tom Ratzki John L. Stein Paul Brockmann Russell Hawes Mark Schoedel Don Bresnan Steve Mahfood Chan Mahanta Brad Goss Gerald Beckmann Lloyd Palans Paul Ziegler www.alaris.us Page 5 i ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 i TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 Page 6 rt (Whereupon, the technical conference commenced 2 at 9:00 A.M. 3 CHAIRMAN name RMAN TCENJES: My is Leonard Toenjes, 4 and I am chair of the Rate Commission of the Metropolitan 5 St Louis Sewer District and will serve as chair of this 6 proceeding. 7 The Charter Plan of the District was approved 8 by the voters of St. Louis and St. Louis County at a 9 special election on February 9, 1934, and amended at a 10 general election on November 7, 2000. The amendment to 1 the Charter Plan established a Rate Commission to review 12 and make recommendations to the District regarding changes 13 in wastewater rates, stormwater rates and tax rates 14 proposed by the District. 15 The e Charter Plan requires the Poard of organizations to name �o select or 16 Trustees of the District g 17 delegates to the Rate Commission to ensure a fair 18 representation of all users of the District's services. 19 The Rate commission representative organizations are to 20 represent commercial -industrial users, residential users L1 and other organizations interested in the operation of the 22 District, including organizations focusing on 23 environmental issues, labor issues, socioeconomic issues, 24 community -neighborhood organizations and other nonprofit 23 organizations. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 7 1 The Rate Commission currently consists of 2 representatives of Associated General Contractors of St. 3 Louis, St. Louis County Municipal League, Lutheran Senior 4 Services, St. Louis Council of Construction Consumers, 5 Greater St. Louis Labor Council, Missouri Botanical 6 Garden, League of Women Voters of Metro St. Louis, Home 7 Builders Association, Mound City Bar Association, North 8 County, Incorporated, Missouri Coalition for the 9 Environment, the City of Ladue, Engineers Club of St. 10 Louis, Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers, and Education 11 Plus. 12 Upon receipt of a Rate Change Notice from the 13 District, the Rate Commission is to recommend to the Board 14 of Trustees changes in a wastewater, stormwater, or tax 15 rate necessary to pay (i) interest and principal falling 16 due on bonds issued to finance assets of the District, 17 (ii) the costs of operation and maintenance and (iii) such 18 amounts as may be required to cover emergencies and 19 anticipated delinquencies. 20 Further, any change in a rate recommended to 21 the Board of Trustees by the Rate Commission is to be 22 accompanied by a statement that the proposed rate change 23 is (i) consistent with constitutional, statutory or common 24 law as amended from time to time; (ii) enhances the 25 District's ability to provide adequate sewer and drainage www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 8 1 systems and facilities, or related services; (iii is 2 consistent with and not in violation of any covenant or 3 provision relating to any outstanding bonds or 4 indebtedness of the District; (iv) does not impair the ability of the District to comply with applicable Federal 6 or State laws or regulations as amended from time to time; 7 and (v) imposes a fair and reasonable burden on all 8 classes of ratepayers. 9 The Rate Commission received a Rate Change 10 Notice from the District on February 26, 2018. Under 1i procedural rules adopted by the Rate Commission, any 12 person affected by the Rate Change Proposal had an 13 opportunity to submit an application to intervene in these 14 proceedings. An application to intervene has been filed 15 by the Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers. This 16 application has been deemed granted. 17 The Rate Commission originally had until June 18 26, 2018 to issue its report on the proposed Rate Change 19 Notice for the Board. of Trustees of the District. The 20 Rate Commission requested an additional 45 days to issue 21 its report, and on May 1, 2018 the District Board of 22 Trustees granted the Rate Commission's request. The Rate 23 Commission must now issue its report on or before August 24 IC, 2018. 25 On February 26, 2018 the District submitted to www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 9 1 the Rate Commission prepared Direct Testimony of Brian 2 Hoelscher, Susan M. Myers, Richard L. Unverferth, Marion 3 M. Gee, Thomas A. Beckley and Henrietta Locklear. 4 On March 12, 2018 the Rate Commission 5 submitted its First Discovery Request to the District. On 6 March 22, 2018 the District filed its responses. On March 7 19, 2018 the Rate Commission submitted its Second 8 Discovery Request to the District, to which the District 9 responded on March 29, 2018. 10 On April 4, 2018 a Technical Conference was 11 held on the record regarding the Rate Setting Documents 12 and the Direct Testimony filed with the Rate Commission by 13 the District. The purpose of the Technical Conference was 14 to provide the District an opportunity to answer questions 15 propounded by members of the Rate Commission; then by any 16 Intervenor, and finally by Lashly & Baer, legal counsel to 17 the Rate Commission. 18 On April 10, 2018 the Rate Commission 19 submitted its Third Discovery Request to the District, to 20 which the District responded on April 20, 2018. On April 21 18, 2018 Intervenor Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers 22 submitted its First Discovery Request to the District, to 23 which the District responded on April 27, 2018. 24 On May 2, 2018 the Rate Commission Consultant 25 and Intervenor Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers www.alaris.us ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.'1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 10 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 _7 '8 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 submitted Rebuttal Testimony. 2 This Technical Conference will be held cn_ the 3 record regarding the Rebuttal Testimony. Each person 4 submitting Rebuttal Testimony shall answer questions propounded by members cf the Rate Commission, the District, then the Intervenor, and finally by our lega? counsel. Following the Technical Conference, the District, the Intervenor, and the Rate Commission Consultant may submit prepared surrebuttal testimonand schedules. A Technical Conference will be held on the record regarding the surrebuttal testimony. At that Technical Conference, each person submitting surrebuttal testimony shall answer questions propounded by members of the Rate Commission, then by the District, and then by the Intervenor, and finally by our legal counsel. Ratepayers who do not wish to intervene will be permitted to participate in a series cf on -the -record public hearing sessions which began on May 8, 2018. Who is here cn behalf of the Metropolitan St Louis Sewer District? MS. MYERS: Susan Myers. CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Who is here on behalf of the Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers? MR. NEUSCHAFER: Brandon Neuschafer. www.aiaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 11 1 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Also present are Pamela 2 Lemoine of Black & Veatch, Consultant to the Rate 3 Commission, Nicole Young of Lion, CSG, and Lisa Stump and 4 Brian Malone of Lashly Baer, legal counsel to the Rate Commission. 6 Under the Rate Commission's operational rules. 7 no person shall be required to answer questions for a 8 total period of more than three hours, and the time shall 9 be evenly divided among all of the participants desiring 10 to ask questions. Following questions by members of the 11 Rate Commission, I will attempt to allocate the time 12 equally among the participants and our legal counsel. To 13 the extent that the District, the Intervenor or legal 14 counsel has not completed the questions at the expiration 15 of that person's allotted time, and to the extent that 16 time remains, such person will be permitted to propound 17 additional questions until the three hours has expired. 18 Are there any additional procedural matters? 19 There being no further procedural matters, Mr. 20 Neuschafer, are you ready to present those persons for 21 whom you filed testimony on behalf of the Missouri 22 Industrial Energy Consumers? 23 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Yes. 24 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Please proceed. 25 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Thank you. My name is www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/1712018 Page 12 Brandon Neuschafer and I represent the Missouri Industrial 2 Energy Consumers. With me today is Mr. Mike Gorman_ who 3 crepared the written testimony that was submitted on 4 behalf of the Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers. 3 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Mr. Gorman, is the 6 testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, 7 and nothing but the truth? S MR. GORMAN: It is. 9 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you. Does any member 1S of the Rate Commission have any questions for Mr. Gorman 11 at this time? Ms. Myers, do you have questions for Mr. 12 Gorman? Oh, I'm sorry. Please proceed. 13 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER PALANS: 14 Q. Mr. Gorman, my name is Lloyd Palans and I 15 would like to ask some questions with regard to your 16 direct testimony. Starting with your summary -- 17 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: I don't think the mics are 18 working at all. 19 (Off the record; technical difficulties.) 20 Q. Mr. Gorman, T would like to start with the 21 22 23 24 25 summary of your direct testimony, and just in Paragraph 1 you reference MSD's own policy states that it will only make investments in the public stormwater system or infrastructure that is located in easements where MSD has rights to access or is property owned by MSD. With regard www.alaris.us ALARMS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 13 1 to that statement, is there a written policy that you're 2 referring to? 3 A. There is. It was referenced in my testimony. 4 Q. Perhaps you could point me to that policy 5 reference. 6 A. I can provide that to you at a later time if 7 that would help expedite things a little bit. Is that -- 8 I don't know if I have that directly in front of me. It 9 was part of the discovery responses that we reviewed and 10 other information related to this case. 11 Q. But this is a written policy that you're 12 referring to, not an oral policy that somebody just 13 recited; is that correct? 14 A. I need to confirm that. That is my 15 understanding, it is a formal policy of MSD. 16 Q. Staying with that same Paragraph 1, the very 17 last sentence, "Therefore, MSD's proposal to include 18 stormwater capital projects on private property should not 19 be allowed." That is your statement, correct? 20 A. It is, unless -- it's my understanding that 21 there's legal restrictions on that, I'm not a lawyer, but 22 it's also consistent with standard practices for utilities 23 that they don't make investments on private property. 24 Q. But just to help me out here, stormwater is a 25 region -wide problem, is it not? www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 14 A. Yes. 2 Q. It affects both public and private property, 3 does it not? 4 A. That's true, but that's true for all utility 5 companies in terms of public service. 6 Q. And stormwater affects hundreds, if not 7 thousands of properties within the district, correct? 8 A. It does, yes. 9 Q. And it -- stormwater remediation benefits the district's service area as a whole, does it not? 11 A. :t could, if the projects are planned with 12 that objective specifically identified. 13 Q. We're talking about stormwater remediation on 14 500-plus projects with a $562 million capital cost 15 requirement. 16 A. Well 17 Q. Is it your testimony that that remediation 18 does not add value to the community as a whole? 19 A. It is my testimony, yes, because there hasn't 20 been explicit identification of projects and description 21 of the benefits that those projects create. That's the 22 limitation of -- 23 Q. And that's where I want to go with you. 24 That's where I'm headed here- Let me just ask you an 25 overall question, and that is is the rate revenue funding www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 15 1 that is proposed adequate to remediate all the flooding 2 and erosion issues within the district? 3 A. I don't believe that's been represented. 4 It's ultimately what we can conclude based on the -- 5 Q. Is that your conclusion? 6 A. My conclusion is there's inadequate planning 7 to justify $30 million a year of revenue collection from 8 customers because the projects are, at very best, a 9 preliminary list of projects that may benefit the 10 stormwater erosion and collection objectives of the 11 district. 12 Q. Mr. Gorman, I don't necessarily disagree with 13 you. Were you present when the testimony was taken on 14 April 4 when the district provided witnesses and 15 testified? 16 A. I was not present for that, no. 17 Q. Did you have the opportunity to review the 18 transcript from that April 4 presentation? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And in fact, you referred to various portions 21 of that transcript in your testimony today, do you not? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. And you read and are familiar with the fact 24 that the representation was made that this $562 million 25 amount is an estimated cost; is that correct? ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 16 A. t seems to be a preliminary estimated cost, 2 yes. 3 Q. And in fact, the Exhibit MSD-48 references on 4 Page 6 that it's a $562 million total estimated cost, 5 correct? 6 A. Yeah, but I'm emphasizing a preliminary 7 estimated cost. I don't believe the detailed engineering 8 has been conducted to create what would normally be a 9 reasonable budget estimate that is appropriate for either 10 setting rates or asking bond holders to fund. 1_ Q. It's my understanding that the district has 12 represented that this was presented as a very quick 13 analysis -- on a very quick analysis, correct? 14 A. I believe that's correct, yes. 15 Q. And it was, in their words, rough estimate, 16 right? 17 A. I believe. I would have to double check 18 scec fically, but generally it was a preliminary estimate, 19 first cut at projecting what these projects will cost. 20 Q. And the testimony at the April 4 hearing was 21 that engineering spent maybe a few minutes looking at each 22 project, correct? 23 A. I would have to check the transcript on that, 24 but it is :y understanding it's a preliminary estimate. 25 Q. And it's based on stormwater complaints that www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 1 are made to the district, correct? Page 17 2 A. That is correct. 3 Q. And it's conceptual in nature, right? 4 A. You're asking very specific descriptions of their testimony. I don't have it in front of me, but 6 generally it is a preliminary estimate. 7 Q. And it's based upon a minimal amount of 8 detailed information, correct? 9 A. That's my understanding. 10 Q. And those conceptual costs as part of that 11 transcript indicated that it did not include any easement 12 acquisition costs, correct? 13 A. I need to verify that, but I believe that's 14 correct. 15 Q. And the $562 million of projects would be done 16 over a number of years; is that your understanding? 17 A. It is. 18 Q. Does that $562 million take into account 19 inflationary costs of construction and inflationary costm 20 of engineering services? 21 A. I believe it's a present value estimate of 22 cost. 23 Q. Mr. Gorman, your testimony makes reference 24 that you believe that the district should be incurring 25 debt to fund the stormwater capital improvements. Is that www.alaris.us i ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 18 your -- a fair characterization of your testimony? 2 A. Well, nc. You're close. T mean it should be 3 considering the use of debt for capital program of over a 4 half a million dollars, yes. 5 Q. I once represented a client writ, ran a large 6 corporation who told me that his task, first task as a 7 chairman of a business is to protect the balance sheet. 8 Is that a good thing or a bad thing? A. Well, protecting the balance sheet is one aspect of balancing the interest of the public interest 11 and the prices customers have to pay for utility services, 12 so it's a factor, but it's -- 13 Q. Incurring debt -- 4 A. -- not the only factor. 15 Q. Pardon me. Incurring debt puts stress on a 16 balance sheet, does it not? 17 A. Putting -- it does, yes, but keep in mind that 18 ;f it's all rate revenue funding, then that means business 19 customers of the MSD may have to take on more debt to pay 20 high sewer bills because there will be less internal cash 21 available to those customers to make investments in their 22 own businesses. So there's a consequence of the customers 23 based on the pricing structure of the MSD. 24 That's why there needs to be consideration of 25 a financing structure that achieves the objectives that www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 19 1 are consistent with the public interest providing 2 wastewater and stormwater utility service, but at the same 3 time minimizing price to customers so customers can afford 4 to pay their bills and operate their businesses or run their households. 6 7 Q. Borrowing costs money, does it not? A. Borrowing has an interest rate, yes, it does, 8 and there's an opportunity cost for funding with rate revenue to customers of the district, so there is a 10 capital cost on both ends of the utility and customer 11 spectrum. 12 Q. There's certain compliance costs that also are 13 associated with borrowing money, correct? You have to 14 comply with loan covenants, a loan agreement, various 15 representations and warranties, right? 16 A. Well, they already -- that is true, but MSD is 17 already maintaining their financial books and records in 18 accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission 19 that allows them to issue bonds. 20 Q. And also there's some legal -- 21 A. Continuation of their current -- 22 Q. I didn't mean to interrupt you, sir. I'm 23 sorry. 24 A. I don't think that would add additional cost 25 to the MSD, because they're already conducting their www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 20 financial statement in accordance with SEC rules that 2 allows them to sell bonds to the public. 3 Q. There's legal fees associated with borrowing 4 money, is there not? A. There is. E Q. Are you familiar with the consent decree that 7 the district is complying with? 8 A. For wastewater collection, yes. 9 Q. Are you familiar with the cost to the district 10 for compliance with that consent decree? 12 A. I am, yes. Q. And $4.7 billion is my understanding of what 13 that cost of compliance is over a 23-year period, correct? 14 A. That was the original estimate, but yeah, that 15 is correct. 16 Q. And what would be the source of the funds to fulfill that $4,7 billion expenditure requirement? 18 A. Well, that's the subject of the wastewater 19 rate cases that have been going on for something in the 20 area of 12 years, which T have participated in all cf 21 those rate cases, and the funding sources for 22 wastewater capital program is a combination of rate 23 revenue funding and bond funding. 24 Q. So the source of money to fund $4.7 billion 25 comes from ratepayers and also borrowed funds, right? www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 21 1 A. Well, yes, but the rates that ratepayers pay 2 are adequate to provide rate revenue and equity funding 3 for the capital program and ratepayers also pay the debt 4 service on those bonds. 5 Q. Mr. Gorman, it was represented in response to 6 interrogatories by the district that the district's 7 current debt is $1.5 billion, and that was on MSD Exhibit 8 Number 36, Page 239. So let's assume that that is the 9 correct number as the record would reflect, $1.5 billion. 10 The district is going to be required to 11 substantially take on additional debt required by the 12 consent decree, will it not? 13 A. It will. In the last rate case I believe I 14 testified that based on the district's projections, they 15 will continue to add debt to their balance sheet and fund 16 the capital improvements -- I have to check this, but it's 17 around 45 percent rate revenue funding and 55 percent bond 18 funding, but at the -- it was just about -- based on the 19 last rate case, they were just about at the end of the 20 major capital programs of that wastewater consent decree 21 correction. 22 At the end of that, then the need for the 23 utility to take on significant amounts of debt will start 24 to mitigate, if not slow down significantly, and from that 25 point forward, rather than designing rates for a certain www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 22 percentage of rate revenue funding and debt service 2 funding on wastewater programs, the objective, that I will 3 be advocating for anyway, is that rates should be designed 4 for maintaining an adequate debt service coverage and 5 maintaining credit standing; that the district can start 6 to pay down the debt in a reasonable and responsible 7 fashion. Q. Mr. Gorman, if the district were to incur debt 9 to finance the stormwater capital program that is 10 proposed, it would mean that there would be less ability 11 to incur debt to fulfill that $4.7 billion requirement 12 under the consent decree? 13 A. Well, the use of debt has an affordability 14 component which the district can only take on so much debt 15 based on the income strength of its customers, so there is 16 limits to how much debt the community can afford, that's 17 true. 18 But then on the other hand, if there's limits 19 on how much debt the community can afford based on those 20 income levels, then there should also be consideration of 21 the rate impacts on those same customers by charging them 22 a higher price for stormwater remediaticn_ without debt 23 than they would be able to do with debt, and that analysis 24 may tell us that while the stormwater collection projects 25 may be worthwhile, the district just can't afford it right www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 23 1 now. They need to wait and implement that at some point 2 in the hopefully not too distant future. 3 Q. Mr. Gorman, the district is r p oposing a $30 4 million revenue stormwater remediation program to fund approximately $562 million capital program. I'm going to 6 go back to what we talked about a short while ago. On a 7 scale of whether you are very confident, confident or not 8 confident at all that this $30 million is adequate to 9 fully address all the capital requirements that are 10 needed, what is your position? 11 A. Well, my position in terms of setting rates is 12 the company's justification for collecting $30 million a 13 year is inadequate. If the district is going to go to 14 bondholders, they have to have good engineering estimates, 15 exactly what they're going to do and what they expect the 16 costs of those projects to be. 17 Customers should get the same kind of 18 protection. They don't have those engineering studies to 19 back up their rate proposal in this case. Whether $30 20 million will -- per year will fund this program, 21 eventually it would over time, I would imagine, but it may 22 not -- the timing of the projects, priority of the 23 projects, the immediate need to make some of these 24 projects has not yet been determined, so bottom line is I 25 think they're asking customers to pay for stormwater www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 24 reraediation based on inadequate planning and imprudent 2 planning from a rate setting standpoint, so it shouldn' t 3 be approved. From a practical standpoint, would they be 4 able to achieve their projects with $30 million a year? think they could, but what we don't know is whether or not 6 there's a timing -- timing element to some of these 7 projects that will allow them tc be completed in a timely 8 manner based on the $30 million a year collection. 9 Q. This proposal is based upon no external 10 borrowing, correct? 12 A. It is. Q. Is based solely upon ratepayers funding the 13 $30 million, correct? 14 15 16 inadequate from the ratepayers, the funds received from 17 ratepayers, is it adequate or inadequate to remediate all 18 of the stormwater capital projects within the district? 19 A. I think that's kind of what : ust answered. A. Correct. Q. And you believe that this is adequate or 20 I don't think it's adequatefrom a rate -making standpoint. 21 Bondholders are protected from insuring that the proceeds 22 of a bond issue will be used for specific capital programs 23 only and those capital programs will be managed reasonably 24 and efficiently. 25 I think customers should get the same www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314-6441334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 25 1 protection, and I don't think MSD has yet completed the 2 detailed engineering plans to identify projects that need 3 to be done versus those that they may want to do first; in 4 other words, identify priorities of projects that help 5 establish the urgency of the project or whether or not the 6 project could be done over some period of time. Q. The current proposal envisions no third party funds to be contributed to stormwater projects; is that correct? 10 A. That is my understanding, yes. 11 Q• Do you believe that it would be a good policy 12 decision on the part of the district to encourage third 13 party funds to contribute to the remediation programs? 14 A. That's actually in my testimony, is based on 15 the projects, after they have been clearly identified and 16 the benefits of those projects have been estimated, then 17 it would be appropriate for the district to consider 18 sharing the cost of those projects or requiring -- 19 attempting to require other parties to fund the project 20 themselves. That would include private property owners, 21 could include municipalities or some other stakeholder 22 that benefits from the project. 23 Q. I don't disagree, and from opening this up to 24 any stakeholder contribution, be it private, corporate, 25 business, nonprofit, municipality, any third party www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 26 1 contribution would remediate these projects that are in 2 need of fixing, correct? 3 A. I believe it would, yes. 4 Q. And it would get our projects fixed faster and 5 with less funds expended by the district? 6 A. Yeah. The remediation would be to the impact 7 on MSD ratepayers, so 1 think other parties contributing 8 to the cost of that would reduce the benefit -- the burden 9 on MSD ratepayers from that standpoint it would remediate 10 the impact. And I believe there is ust a fairness 17 standpoint that if private property owners or 12 municipalities or primary beneficiaries, and MSD is a 13 stakeholder in that process also, it might be appropriate 14 for a partnership to move forward with the project or 15 there might be instances where MSD really shouldn't have 16 to pick up any part of that cost. 17 Q. Even if the proposal as it is presented would 18 be voted on and approved and a $30 million rate proposal 19 was put into effect within the district, it would still be 20 beneficial to have third party funds contributed to 21 remediate these capital projects and allow the district to 22 use its available funds to fix other projects that are in 23 need of remediation, correct? 24 A. I would agree with that. I would state it a 25 little differently, that even if the $30 million a year www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 27 1 collection is approved, MSD still has obligations to 2 efficiently and prudently manage how it spends that money 3 and that would include considering whether or not there A are other stakeholders that should contribute to the cost 5 of those projects. 6 COMMISSIONER PALANS: Thank you. I have no 7 further questions, Mr. Chairman. 8 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Palans_ Do 9 any of the other Rate Commissioners have any questions at 10 this time? 11 COMMISSIONER ZIEGLER: Yes. 12 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Please. 13 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER ZIEGLER: 14 Q. It's my understanding that there's inadequate 15 engineering at this point to support the rate? 16 A. It's my understanding there's only preliminary 17 estimates of the projects. 18 Q. Is this a new area that MSD is entering into, 19 meaning stormwater remediation? 20 A. Not a new area, but I think there are certain 21 projects that they want to move forward. 22 Q. Would it be prudent for them to spend 23 significant amount of money to draw up engineering without 24 funds committed to those projects prior to -- 25 A. Well, it's kind of -- what comes first, the www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 28 1 chicken or the egg. If they want customers to pay for the 2 projects, then they have to show which projects need to be 3 completed and why they need to be completed, and to get 4 bond funding they would have to make that demonstration to 5 the bondholders, so I think the customers should get the 6 same protections. 7 We don't know, without complete engineering 6 studies, at least in an initial manner, whether or not 9 these Projects need to be done. 10 Q. Typically what is the percentage of cost for 11 engineering on a project percentage -wise? 12 A. I believe it depends on the project_ 13 Q. Any estimate at all? 14 A. = would hate to guess without doing a little 15 research to give you a good estimate of that, but I do 16 know that based on the wastewater Project, wastewater 17 rate -setting proposals, that MSD has built up their 18 engineering staff just for managing these capital 19 projects, so I think they would have internal engineering 20 capabilities to give better estimates cf what these 21 project costs would be, and the cost cf that engineering 22 staff is already being paid for by MSD. 23 I don't think there's an incremental cost to 24 taking their initial estimates of these projects to the 25 next stage, get a better estimate of at least the larger www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 29 1 projects which they think have the greatest benefits, 2 potential benefits. 3 Q. Is that any deception to the public to use 4 engineers that were brought on staff for wastewater 5 treatment -- or wastewater remediation to now use those 6 for stormwater remediation that is not part of the scope 7 currently with MSD? 8 A. Well, if MSD believes that the stormwater 9 projects are within their utility mandate, then I think 10 they are conducting MSD's normal business. 11 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Goss. 12 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER GOSS: 13 Q. Did I hear your testimony correctly that you 14 said that MSD hadn't given any prioritization as far as 15 projects? 16 A. It's my understanding that all of them are 17 preliminary estimates of what the capital costs would be 18 for these projects. 19 Q. So is it your understanding that MSD hasn't 20 considered these projects in its stormwater facility 21 planning report? 22 A. I believe it has considered the projects, but 23 my understanding is the actual costs and benefits of the 24 projects are based on preliminary estimates. 25 Q. And are you familiar with MSD's project www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 Page 30 prioritization system? 2 A. Not in great detain.. 3 Q. Do you know if MSD has used that priority 4 system to rate these various projects that it's 5 considering? 6 A. Not to my knowledge. They have not 7 established priority of these projects. I don't believe 8 there's been detailed engineering that would allow for a 9 prioritization of the projects because engineering studies 10 of the projects haven't been completed. 11 Q. Now, you said you weren't familiar with MSD's 12 prioritization system in detail; is that right? l3 A. I did not review it specifically for this 14 testimony, that's correct. ?5 Q. So if you look at that prioritization system, 16 it's not terribly detailed, if you recall -- do you recall 17 it at all? 18 A. It's been a while since : looked at that. I 19 did in conjunction with some wastewater cases, but I did 20 not for this case. 21 Q. Just to walk you through a little bit, they 22 have a rating system with points and they consider whether 23 a structure is being affected and there's a certain amount 24 of points associated with a structure being affected. 25 They consider frequency of the problems and they give ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 24 25 Page 31 1 points associated with that. So there is, at a gross 2 level, a system that they use to prioritize and rate 3 projects, and do you believe that system is inadequate to 4 rate the projects MSD is considering at this point? 5 A. I think it should be conducted along with the 6 next phase of actually estimating what the costs of these 7 projects will be along with the benefits of these 8 projects. It's not my testimony that the prioritization 9 methodology is not reasonable. It's that the whole 10 planning process needs to be taken to the next level to 11 identify what actually needs to be done and priority of 12 the projects and how much money is needed by the district, 13 and then, most importantly, what's the best funding 14 structure for accomplishing that prioritized project list. 15 Q. So you don't believe it's adequate if MSD has 16 undertaken a prioritization review based on methodology 17 that's in the prioritization system; that's adequate to 18 evaluate these projects, is that what I heard? 19 A. I think you're confusing -- what I understand 20 MSD has already done is spent relatively little time 21 reviewing each of the individual projects. I think their 22 own testimony said some of their engineers spent very 23 little time on this. From -- and that's why I think the engineering is not adequate. What I think the MSD is capable of doing and www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 Page 32 have done with other projects is more detailed cost 2 estimate what these Projects will cost and what the 3 priority list of those Projects should be based on 4 prioritization assessment similar to what you're 5 describing. I don': believe those later steps have 6 actually occurred for these stormwater remediation 7 projects. 8 Q. So you don't believe it's reasonable or 9 prudent for MSD to do that as a second step, assuming this 10 funding were to be approved? 11 A. T_ think it's prudent and reasonable for them 12 to do it in support of requesting rate revenue funding 13 from customers and/or bond funding for this program. So I 14 think their request for race revenue collection from 13 customers prior to completing that engineering study makes 16 this rate filing premature. 17 COMMISSIONER GCSS: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER ZIEGLER: One last question. 19 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Please. 20 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER ZIEGLER: 21 Q. Is there somebody better regionally equipped 22 to handle stormwater remediation projects better than MSD, 23 in your opinion? Because you recognized earlier it's a 24 regional problem, so I'm just curious if there's somebody 25 better to handle this regional problem. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 33 1 A. I don't know if there's anybody better to do 2 it, but I do think that MSD, if they're a qualified 3 candidate, should do it in a responsible way, and that 4 means do detailed engineering designs on the project, cost 5 estimates and prioritization of those projects. 6 While MSD might be the best entity to move 7 forward with that, they still have an obligation to 8 conduct themselves in a prudent and reasonable manner and 9 to make sure that the rates they charge their customers 10 reflect only prudent capital expenditures proposed by the 11 district and that the costs they want to recover from 12 customers are reasonable, and that customer protection 13 element has not yet been done by MSD. 14 And to sum it up, while they may be the best 15 candidate to move forward with these projects, they still 16 have an obligation to protect customers, and in order to 17 do that, more detailed engineering plans need to be 18 completed, prioritization list of the projects need to be 19 made and more confidence that they're not asking for more 20 revenue from customers than what's really needed to build 21 out these stormwater remediation activities as part of the 22 overall rate plan. 23 COMMISSIONER ZIEGLER: Nothing further. 24 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Mr. Brockmann. 25 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER BROCKMANN: www.alaris.us ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 34 Q. Mr. Gorman, are you aware, how do 2 municipalities come up with additional funds? There seems 3 to be a lot of interest in third party contributions for 4 regional problems. How -- are you aware of funding 5 sources that municipalities have to do this? 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Well, it depends on the municipality, but if it's a project that benefits the municipality, then the municipality typically will have some obligations to get the residents of the community to do what's in the public interest. Municipalities generally generate revenue from various sources, sales tax, property tax, other levies on the community, and they have to prioritize how tney use that revenue tc benefit the community. Q. Are you aware of any special sales taxes that municipalities collect specifically for stormwater? A. I am not. Q. I can't tell you all the details, but I know the state legislature allows certain collect a certain half cent, quarter stormwater there with municipalities to cent called parks and sales tax, and it seems to me there's money out some municipalities, but I have no idea how that coordination happens with those municipalities and spending the money, if they spend it on stormwater -- if they spend it on stormwater, maybe it all goes to parks, I ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 35 1 don't know, but it seems to me there needs to be some 2 regional coordination. Do you have any thoughts on how 3 that might occur? 4 A. Well, I think that's part of what we need to 5 have more information on in deciding how much of the cost 6 should be the responsibility of the MSD and that would be 7 benefitting from better cost estimates of the projects and 8 the expected benefits of the projects and who are the 9 beneficiaries of the projects. If it's a municipality, 10 then there may be -- it may be appropriate for MSD to 11 either present the concept to the municipality for them to 12 take on the project or to support the municipality in some 13 way including, in part, financial support. 14 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Mr. Goss. 15 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER GOSS: 16 Q. Just to follow up on that, is it your 17 testimony that in order to be reasonable and prudent, MSD 18 should incorporate a cost sharing model as part of this 19 rate proposal? 20 A. I think that -- yes, I think that is 21 consistent with insuring that MSD customers only pay costs 22 that are prudently incurred by the MSD, and to the extent 23 MSD can fund projects in partnership with other 24 stakeholders, I think they should be obligated to pursue 25 that possibility. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 36 COMMISSIONER GOSS: Okay. Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Other questions from any 3 other Rate Commissioner? 4 QUESTIONS BY CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Q. Mr. Gorman, I have a question. I've had the 6 opportunity to write a textbook on construction 7 estimating, and there are levels of estimates. There is 8 the order of magnitude, intermediary, preliminary, 9 substantive, definitive, all these different levels of 10 estimates that go through the gestation of a project from 11 concept to completion. 12 You stated a couple times that you really are 13 not comfortable with the level of estimate that MSD has 14 done on these projects. At what level of estimate does 15 MIEC get comfortable? 16 A. I think that's a fair question. w don't know 17 if I can't give you a complete answer cn that, but if they 18 had specific projects which they say they think needs to 19 be done in the next five years, projects need to be done 20 over the next 13 years, projects that need to be done when 21 they can afford to do them, would be helpful, and then 22 with that prioritization explaining exactly what it is the 23 project -- how the project will benefit the community and 24 the public and then the best estimate that they're able to 25 put together on what the costs cf the project will be in 1 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 37 1 the next five years, next 10 years or -- 2 Q. Well, the best estimate is 100 percent. Is 3 that your expectation? A. I don't understand what you mean 100 percent. Q. The best estimate would be the definitive 6 estimate that is -- is that your expectation for moving 7 forward with funding? Most -- I think most municipalities 8 or most agencies do a preliminary estimate where they get 9 a general idea of a cost range. It's a model that MODOT 10 uses where their internal engineers do a project, put it 11 out for bid, they get the bids back, they see where it is 12 along that range. 13 I guess I'm just trying to figure out, 14 prioritization is one thing. The level of estimate is 15 another thing, and what sort of level of estimate you all 16 are shooting for in order to get your comfort level at 17 comfort. 18 A. For rate -making purposes, when a utility comes 19 to a regulatory commission for a new capital investment, 20 they have a level of project detail that includes at least 21 a preliminary estimate from several contractors. There 22 may be contingencies within those project estimates for 23 materials, for labor, for time periods, but based on that 24 detailed estimate of what their actual cost is expected to 25 be for that project, that's the kind of detail normally -- A 4 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 38 that's normally used for rate -making purposes as well as 2 the benefits those projects could increase to the 3 customers who are going to pay for that Project. CHAIRMAN TCENJES: Thank you. Any further 5 questions? Thank you. Ms. Myers, do you have questions 6 for Mr. Gorman on behalf of the district? 7 MS. MYERS: The district does not have any 8 questions. 9 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Ms. Myers. Ms. "IC Stump, do you have any questions for Mr. Gorman on behalf 11 of the Rate Commission? 12 MS. STUMP: I have just a couple, please. 13 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Please ccire forward. 14 QUESTIONS BY MS. STUMP: 15 Q. How are you, Mr. Gorman? 16 A. Fine. 17 Q. We've done this before, 18 A. Yes, we have. 19 Q. So you understand that I represent the Rate 20 Commission, and really I'm just going to ask a couple 21 questions and try to clarify for the record a couple 22 things. 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Do you have your testimony with you? 25 A. I do. www.alaris.us ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 39 1 Q. On Page 8. 2 A. All right. 3 Q. And you had some discussion with Mr. Palans, 4 but I just want to clarify a couple things. You state in 5 answer to your question, "There is simply no justification 6 for MSD making improvements on property it does not own, 7 and is not part of the MSD public stormwater or wastewater 8 utility infrastructure." And then later you say, "MSD 9 should be obligated to justify that all projects it 10 undertakes are made in the public interest and within MSD 11 investment policy constraints." 12 Can it be that -- can a project -- in your 13 opinion, can a project be done on private property and 14 still be within the public interest? 15 A. It's possible it could be, but it also has to 16 be within the MSD investment policy experience, and in 17 that instance I think MSD would be obligated to explain 18 why MSD ratepayers benefit from that project. 19 Q. But it's possible that a project that's on 20 private property that's to fix erosion could have a public 21 benefit? 22 A. I would think there is a possibility, yes. 23 Q. On Page 10, in the answer to your question you 24 state that, "'Pith 75 percent of the assets being owned by 25 MSD, a financing structure that uses a mix of bond and www.alaris.us i i i J ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 40 1 rate revenue funding is worthy of consideration in this 2 proceeding, and appears to be within MSD's authority to 3 use bond funding on at least a portion of the proposed 4 stormwater capital program." 5 Is it your recommendation that it should be 75 6 percent bond funding and 25 percent revenue? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. it should be a prudent level of bond and rate 10 revenue funding. Consideration should be impact on debt 11 -- the structure of any bond funding should consider the 12 financial impact on MSD and its ability to maintain its 13 bond rating, so that would require consideration of debt 14 service coverage, which 's a credit rating factor, primary 15 credit rating factor. :t should also consider affordability by customers in terms of issuing bonds for 17 the stormwater, recognizing additional bonds for the 18 wastewater consent decree program. 19 With that information and identification of 20 the projects and a prioritization of projects, a program 21 that allows the MSD to move forward with the stormwater 22 remediation costs in a way to mitigate the price to 23 customers and maximize the benefits to the public should 24 be pursued. 25 MS. STUMP: I'm just making sure. The www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 41 1 commissioners did all my work over here. I do not have 2 any further questions. 3 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Ms. Stump. Mr. 4 Neuschafer, do you have any further questions for Mr. 5 Gorman? 6 MR. NEUSCHAFER: I do not. 7 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Do any of the Rate 8 Commissioners have any further questions for Mr. Gorman at 9 this time? Thank you, Mr. Gorman. 10 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Ms. Stump, are you ready to 12 present persons for whom you filed testimony on behalf of 13 the Rate Commission? 14 MS. STUMP: Yes. Pamela Lemoine. 15 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Ms. Lemoine, is the 16 testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, 17 and nothing but the truth? 18 MS. LEMOINE: Yes. 19 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you. Do any members 20 of the Rate Commission have any questions for Ms. Lemoine 21 at this point? 22 COMMISSIONER PALANS: Yes. 23 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Mr. Palans. 24 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER PALANS: 25 Q. Good morning, MS. Lemoine. www.alaris.us ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.8O0.28O.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 42 1 A. Good morning, 2 Q. Ms. Lemoine, I would just like to embellish a 3 little bit on -- or understand is a better word -- some of 4 the statements in your testimony. In Paragraph 3. on Page 3 of your testimony you say, "The proposed stormwater 6 capital rate will fund capital projects and address 7 outstanding flooding and erosion issues throughout the 8 district. Such projects have not been possible to date 9 due to lack of funding." 10 Is it your testimony that this proposed 11 capital rate, $30 million per year, will guarantee that �2 all capital projects identified will be remediated within 13 the district? 14 A. No, 1 don't believe there's any guarantee of 15 chat. 16 Q. And, in fact, the current project list that 17 the district has provided is, in their words, based on a 18 minimal amount of detailed information available regarding 19 geotechnical conditions, utility relocation requirements, 20 easement requirements and other site -specific issues that 21 have the potential to significantly affect the projects' 22 eventual construction costs. Is that -- that's contained 23 in the actual proposal, MSD Exhibit 1, correct? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. And the $562 million of projects that have ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 43 1 been identified, it's going to take a number of years to 2 complete even if the $30 million per year is approved and 3 the rates are received, correct? 4 A. That is correct. Q. So that over a period of time, you expect that 6 $562 million cost to stay the same, static at $562 7 million, or will it be materially more? 8 A. I would anticipate that that value will 9 change, whether materially -- in a material manner or not, 10 I couldn't say, but yes, certainly as the district moves 11 forward with projects, additional information is gathered, 12 perhaps other projects arising that perhaps aren't 13 identified at this time, all of those factors may change 14 that total cost. 15 Q. And if you would, please, turn to Page 7 of 16 your testimony, and it's Question 19, Paragraph A. Tell 17 me when you have it in front of you. 18 A. Yes. My pagination is a little different, 19 so -- 20 Q. In Paragraph A you indicate in the second 21 sentence that, "Based upon the rate proposal, it appears 22 that the proposed funding method may generate sufficient 23 revenue to fund the district's projected stormwater 24 capital costs at the level of spending indicated in its 25 rate proposal." Correct? www.alaris.us ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 44 A. Correct. 2 Q. And you use a word that I want to focus on, 3 and that is the proposed funding method may generate, as 4 opposed to will or shall. Is there a reason why you 3 selected that word? 6 A. Yes. I think as you proceed with my testimony 7 in the supplements below, I itemized some of the factors 8 that could affect the overall funding of the program. 9 Q. And the proposed funding method may generate 11 sufficient funding revenues if the sizing and the pricing costs are accurate, correct? 12 A. Correct. Correct. 13 Q. And those pricing costs and sizing remains the 14 same as it is today, correct? A. Yes. 16 Q. Without inflationary costs? 17 A. I believe that the -- there are inflationary 18 -- based on my review of some of the information that was 19 provided, I believe that within the rate model those 20 inflationary factors are incorporated in the project cost 21 estimates in the years that are included in the rate 22 model. 23 Q. But you understand, and you were present on 24 April 4 when the district provided its testimony that 2� these $562 million of identified capital projects www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 45 1 represent a very quick analysis, engineering spent maybe a 2 few minutes looking at each report, rough estimates based 3 on stormwater complaints, conceptual in nature, minimal 4 amount of detailed information; you understand that, do you not? 6 A. Yes, that's my understanding, based on the 7 testimony, that it was conceptual cost estimating. 8 Q. And based upon that concept, are you 9 confident, somewhat confident, or not confident at all 10 that $562 million today will fix all the problems within 11 the district? 12 A. I think, you know, T would defer that to 13 Nicole, that question to Nicole Young, as the engineer 14 that's really been focused on the capital program. In 15 general, the program is -- you know, the $562 million, my 16 understanding is is that conceptual cost analysis that was 17 used to help inform, along with public input, the level of 18 funding that they want to set this program at. 19 So the question becomes more not so much is 20 the $30 million adequate, but is -- is the 30-year time 21 horizon going to be required to complete this list of 22 projects. If costs are more, based on this level of 23 funding, it would take longer to accomplish all the 24 projects. 25 Q. Ms. Lemoine, do you think it would be a good www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 46 1 thing or a bad thing if third party funds would be 2 encouraged for contribution in a quasi -public -private 3 partnership to remediate our projects within the district? 4 A. Certainly third party funds, as has been 5 testified to, would provide an additional funding source 6 that would help enhance the completion of the projects more quickly. 8 Q. Third party sources are a good thing, are they 9 not? i0 A. Certainly additional funding sources are 11 always helpful in completing a program, yes. 12 Q. And they would supplement the available 13 resources for the district to complete these projects, 14 would they not? 15 A. That is true, it would. 16 COMMISSIONER PALANS: Thank you. I have nc 17 further questions. 18 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Palans, 19 Anyone else have -- yes, Mr. Mahfood. 20 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER MAHFOOD: 21 Q. I've got a question. If I can ask you, Pam, 22 to kind of summarize your view of -- your responses were 23 -- take a step back. Your responses were very clear 24 regarding the district's incentive proposal, and in 25 Questions 22 to 26, and depending on which copy you have ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 47 1 here, I have Page 9, starting Question 22, you pretty 2 clearly outline your view of the incentives and 3 effectiveness. Could you summarize what your thoughts are 4 about the incentives as they've been proposed? A. Sure. I think, as a general rule, the level 6 of incentive that's going to be provided by the credit 7 programs is going to be limited just due to the nature of 8 the low fee in the first place. Even with 100 percent 9 credit, because the fee is so low, the utility is going to 10 be limited in incentivizing folks to do things. 11 However, it does still provide -- the credit 12 program, any credit program is still really important from 13 the perspective of providing equity and fairness for 14 customers that do participate in those programs that have 15 that cost reduction due to that effort. 16 Q. Can you maybe expand a little bit on what your 17 answer to Question 25 -- I know there are other options 18 out there. I'm sure you're probably -- have been familiar 19 in your work with other ways of Possibly approaching this 20 incentive side. Could you maybe amplify on that a little 21 bit, how you could see it it could be or how we could 22 add to this? 23 A. Sure. So in light of the fact that the fee 24 itself is low and the credit to be provided won't really 25 incentivize folks to do things, another option would be to www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 48 1 provide some type of grant program so if the uti-"2ty's 2 policy and desire is to really incentivize the reduction 3 of effective either impervious area or effective 4 impervious area by managing stormwater on site, grant 5 programs similar to that which they have in place for in 6 Project Clear would be to provide grant funding for 7 eligible types of projects, and 2 think in some of the 8 exhibits there are some other examples of utilities that 9 do that, 13 What that is is you're decoupling that from a 11 credit program and providing it on a grant basis, so that 12 does have impact then on monies available for capital 13 programs from that same revenue source. 14 Q. Would you think, though, by doing that more in 15 a front-end loaded manner, could potentially reduce what 16 might be highly inflated costs 10 years, 20 years from 17 now, we possibly mitigate, by spending the money up front 18 on the prevention? 19 A. s think it depends on where the -- where those 20 facilities are implemented and where the problems reside. 21 So certainly if there were things that could be done in 22 that that would be eligible for that type of a grant in 23 the same area where a problem exists, then that could be 24 helpful, but if it's in other parts of the system where 25 the prioritized projects don't line up, stormwater is www.afaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 49 1 local and watershed based and MSD services a number of 2 different watersheds, so it would depend on the location. 3 Q. So there could be a link between what we're 4 talking about here and the process of establishing 5 priorities or what projects are done at what -- in what 6 timeline? 7 A. There could be, and for, you know, more detail 8 from the engineering perspective, I would refer to Nicole 9 Young to elaborate on that further, the details. 10 Q. Sure. 11 A. I'm more on the financial side. 12 MR. MAHFOOD: Sure. Thank you very much. 13 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Yes, Mr. Goss. 14 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER GOSS: 15 Q. So did I understand your testimony to be that 16 you don't believe this credit program is going to 17 incentivize any behavior? 18 A. I wouldn't say that it will not. I think it 19 will have more limited incentive just based on the low 20 value. So if someone is really incentivized to reduce 21 their fee to pay for the asset that they would be putting 22 in place, the payback period for that is long enough that 23 it probably isn't going to incentivize greatly. 24 However, I do believe that a credit program is 25 an important component of all stormwater user fee www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 50 1 programs- 2 Q. I'm not quite sure why you hold that belief if 3 you don't believe people are really going to be 4 incentivized by it. I get the idea in the abstract that 5 credit programs are good things, but credit programs don't 6 actually motivate people to do something, seems to me 7 that's somewhat cynical, but let me ask you this. The 8 credit, if I understand it right, is $135 maximum; is that 9 right? 10 A. The residential incentive program, yes. 11 Q. Do you have any sense or estimate of how much 12 the costs of a typical residential stormwater improvement 13 might be? 14 A. That is not in my area of expertise. I think 15 there has been some testimony prior that gave some ranges. 16 It would depend on what the BMP or best management 17 practice is, if it's a rain garden or cistern, what it is 18 and what the size of it is. 19 Q. If I understand it correctly, the $135 would 20 be paid over 10 years; is that right? 21 A. For the residential program, my understanding 22 is that it's -- it's calculated based on a 50 percent 23 credit over 10 years, but it's an up -front payment. 24 Q. How would you change the credit program so 25 that it mould, if you have an opinion about how to change www.alaris.us i ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 51 1 the credit program so that it would be more effective in 2 incentivizing behavior? 3 A. Again, based on the level of the funding, the 4 level of the stormwater rate, I don't know that there is a 5 lot more that can be done to incentivize. In my testimony 6 I stated that the district might consider having that as 7 an ongoing credit for the residential customers to help 8 encourage ongoing maintenance, because then it could be 9 removed over time as -- as that matter, but again, I don' 10 believe that it's going to be possible to really just -- 11 for that reason only, for that fee only, to greatly 12 incentivize. 13 Q. Is that because there's simply not enough 14 money available to make that an effective credit? 15 A. Correct. Because the fee is $2.25 for one 16 ERU, there just really isn't a lot of money there. Other 17 utilities that have -- such as, say, Portland, Oregon who 18 have really robust stormwater programs, their fees are up 19 in the $35 or so for whatever that value is at this point 20 in time for residential customers, then a credit starts to 21 become more meaningful. 22 Q. So do you have any opinion on whether MSD 23 should be seeking a higher amount of -- higher rate? 24 A. Well, the district is funding their stormwater 25 program from multiple funding sources, so I wouldn't www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 52 } recommend that the rate be higher just to provide the 2 incentive. It would be -- that would generate, you know, 3 additional funds for more capital projects, they could do 4 this program more quickly, but there's a balancing act 5 between what the customer affordability is, what the needs 6 are within the CIRP, how quickly that program should be 7 done and the consideration of Providing incentive to 8 customers. 9 Q. In this program, at best, in its best day, 10 it's a 30-year program to -- what we've been told. 11 A. That's my understanding. 12 Q. And that's on its best day. And that's 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 assuming that we got it all right and got these cost estimates right that we haven't spent much time developing and everything else works out the way we -- I guess the model says it will work; isn't that true? A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. In 30-years time, the vast majority of us will not be here to see the results of that program, which is somewhat dismaying in terms of this being an effective 21 program. Do you have any opinion about that? Is this 22 typical that these programs should take that long? 23 A. Well, the district is one of the largest 24 stcrmwater service areas in the country, and so the 25 magnitude of the issues that it's going to have to address www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 53 1 is large. Certainly if the fee were higher and they could 2 fund more projects sooner, the program could be addressed 3 more quickly. You know, I think it's definitely a step in 4 the right direction to be able to start to address these issues that haven't been able -- that haven't been funded 6 in the past. And again, it becomes a balancing act of customer affordability and the need to address the issues, 8 Q. And am I right that the cost to the customers 9 is going to be about $2.25 a year or a month or 10 A. It's $2.25 per month for the average 11 residential customer. The residential fee is a 12 four -tiered structure, so some residential customers will 13 pay a little less, some a little more, and then 14 non-residential would be based on their actual impervious 15 areas, so the non-residential rates in most cases would be 16 higher than $2.25 per month. 17 Q. And I'm very sympathetic with the idea of not 18 increasing costs to people. We all have costs we have to 19 pay for our basic needs, et cetera, but $2.25, you can buy 20 a hamburger at McDonald's for that much money. I mean it 21 just pales in terms of need for the amount of money. I 22 don't -- is this typical of what you mould see in other 23 areas of the country in terms of what they would charge 24 residential customers for this type of program? 25 A. So most stormwater utilities have a single www.aiaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 54 funding -- most often will have a single funding source. 2 Some have a couple of different funding sources, but for 3 stormwater utilities that have a user fee, usually that's 4 the primary source of revenue, so it's that fee, for those 5 stormwater utilities, is recovery, not just capital 6 projects, but also operation and maintenance costs as well 7 and regulatory costs. MSD has different funding sources 8 for that that customers are paying through the property 9 tax assessment and two cent tax and 10 cent tax. 10 Q. All right. And so would it be your 11 recommendation those should be -- MSD would benefit from 12 combining all of those in a single rate? Do you have an 13 opinion about that? 14 A. You know, the last -- with the last rate 15 proposal in my testimony I had recommended that impervious 16 area based fee is the most equitable way to recover 17 stormwater utility costs. I didn't, you know, opine -- 18 now that the property taxes are in place and this rate 19 Proposal was ;ust limited to the capital rate Proposal, I 20 didn't go back and evaluate that bigger picture. 21 Q. Now, if this program is supposed to fund 22 capital costs, would MSD be permitted to give a credit 23 under this program to residents for maintenance, costs 24 associated with that, would that be allowed? 25 A. 1 wouldn't recommend that, no, because that's www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 55 1 fee funded from a different source. Similarly, some 2 utilities will have credit programs for educational 3 institutions for providing classes and public outreach and 4 that sort of thing within the educational institution. But again, T wouldn't recommend that for this fee, because 6 those are costs that the utility is incurring, it's funded from a different source. o Q. Right. And what I thought I heard you testify 9 a little bit earlier was giving customers a credit for 10 maintenance BNPs. Did I mishear that? 11 A. Correct. Correct. I don't believe I said that. If I did, I misspoke. The credit would be for 13 inputting -- for installing rain gardens and that SOIL of 14 thing. 15 Q. No, I understood that, bti.. rnougnti you se.. 16 at one point, kind of in passing, that it would be -- if 17 you wanted to -- since you made a comment about whether 18 this was an effective incentive or not, but it might be a 19 more effective incentive to focus on giving credits for 20 maintenance sorts of things. 21 A. No. So my comment in that regard was that in 22 providing a credit on an ongoing basis for the residential 23 incentive versus an up -front incentive, it would encourage 24 the customers to continue to maintain those in an adequate 25 manner. These BMPs, like rain gardens, are only effective www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 56 1 if they're properly maintained. If you give an incentive 2 up front with no obligation to continue to operate or 3 maintain it, then it's not providing the value that MSS is 4 expecting, so you're not giving a credit for the 5 maintenance, you're expecting the maintenance in order to 6 aet the credit. 7 Q. Do you think that the -- do you have an 8 opinion as to whether a grant program would be more 9 effective in terms of addressing residential stormwater IC remediation as opposed to the credit program that's being 1 proposed? 12 A. In the sense that a Grant program could be 13 established that would provide more funding to incentivize 14 a property owner to implement the asset, yes. Certainly 15 as far as the details, what that should be, that's all the 16 detail that would have to be looked at in developing a 17 grant program as far as what the requirements would be, 18 what kind of grant you would provide, how you would go 19 about doing -that, what the overall budget for a grant 2C program would be and the impact on the capital program 21 that would result by taking those funds out of the capital 22 program. 23 Q. But that's something that could be funded out 24 of this rate, a grant program? 25 A. It is something that the district could ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 Page 57 1 consider to provide further incentive, yes. 2 Q. Now, what would be -- what analysis -- how 3 difficult would it be to come up with the kind of analysis 4 you described of evaluating how much the grant should be 5 and how much demand there would be for the grants and what 6 kind of impact that would have on the capital program? 7 A. I would probably direct that question to the 8 district with regard to how they developed their Project 9 Clear grant program, because they do have experience with 10 having developed that specifically for this service area. 11 Q. How do other districts do that kind of 12 analysis? 13 A. I haven't been involved in the development of 14 a grant program, per se, but in the development of credit 15 programs we work with the utilities and the utility's 16 engineers to evaluate what the costs are of the program, 17 what the -- it's both a policy and technical consideration 18 as far as what the needs are, what the value is to the 19 utility. 20 Q. Do you recall from MSD's prior testimony as to 21 how much demand there has been for grants under Project 22 Clear by residential customers? 23 A. I do recall reading that I don't recall the 24 specifics to quote a figure, but it wasn't -- it wasn't a 25 large number. i ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 i TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 58 Q. Right. That was my recollection, too, it 2 wasn't a very large number. So how would -- I think I had 3 asked the director did he have any ideas of how to make 4 that a more effective grant program, and that discussion 5 didn't go very far Do you have any opinion -- so which 6 is why I'm kind of pursuing this grant program idea with 7 you, because if we model it on what Operation Clear has 8 done, which doesn't seem to have been an effective grant 9 program, it doesn't seem to be a recipe for success. 10 A. It depends. You know, I haven't been involved 11 with that and I don't know if there has been any outreach 12 to see, you know, kind of why the participation has been 13 low. It varies across the country as far as interest in 14 those kinds of projects that would be eligible for a 15 grant. 16 Different parts of the country are, you know, 17 really aware and really, you know, into green roofs, you 18 know, rain gardens, that sort of thing. Other parts of 19 the country may be -- you know, the awareness hasn't got 20 to that point. So I think that public awareness and 21 interest is an. important Piece of that. I don't know -- 22 haven' reviewed the grant program that they have in place 23 now in detail to know if there are any other reasons why 24 it hasn't been pursued any more than it has. 25 Q. Do you know if this rate proposal has a www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 23 24 Lemoine. Page 59 1 component in it for paying for public awareness, assuming 2 this rate is adopted, and to raise consciousness with 3 respect to stormwater and stormwater remediation and 4 options that would be available? Do you know if the rate 5 includes those kinds of things? 6 A. I don't believe the stormwater rate does 7 because it's a capital rate, a capital program. My 8 understanding is that through the district's permit and 9 their requirements with the regulatory requirements, that 10 they have public outreach programs that addresses those 11 kinds of things. 12 Q. That was my understanding as well. Do you 13 know if that regulatory program is -- if there's any 14 proposed budget that's been set aside to focus on raising 15 consciousness with respect to this rate and what would be 16 available for consumers? 17 A. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the 18 budget, how they've allocated time and what their specific 19 project outreach protocols are. 20 COMMISSIONER GOSS: Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Goss. Any 22 questions from any of the other Rate Commissioners or -- COMMISSIONER RATZKI: I have one for Ms. 25 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Yes. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 Page 60 1 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER RA^_ZK-: 2 Q. I just want to make sure that --- on the record 3 that we understand the capital program. We've gone to 4 great lengths today to talk about it's very preliminary, 3 $30 million may or may not be enough money, it could be, 6 but also the revenue is not static depending on how much 7 we involve the credit program, incentive program, and also 8 any changes in pervious area over time. Would you agree with that, that the revenues may not be static also? 10 A. Yeah, that's -- yes, that's correct. In my 11 testimony I noted those -- the assumptions that are used 12 in the rate model that provides the revenues for the 13 estimated $30 million per year and changes to the 14 impervious area -- the billable units, the impervious 15 area, whether it be from reduction of impervious area due 16 to the credit program, changes once the fee goes into 17 place based on appeals that you can always expect when a 18 utility starts, and then just general changes in the 19 service area as a whole. All cf those things can either 20 increase or decrease the level of revenue that will be 21 seen through this $2.25 over time. 22 Q. So there could be added projects to the 23 capital program, decreased projects to the capital 24 program, increase in cost, decrease in cost, plus the 2� revenues could go up or down? i www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 1 2 3 rage Cr A. That's correct. Q. I wanted to make sure that's clear. A. Yeah. And so that's -- you know, it will be 4 important obviously for the utility to continue to monitor 5 that on an annual basis in order to determine what 6 projects move forward over time based on available 7 funding. 8 COMMISSIONER RATZKI: Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Any other Rate 10 Commissioners have any questions? Hearing none, I'm going 11 to suggest that we break until 10:45, and at that point we 12 will resume with questions for Ms. Lemoine. 13 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:30 to 14 10:45 A.M.) 15 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Ms. Lemoine, 16 we're back in session. Ms. Myers, do you have questions 17 for Ms. Lemoine? 18 MS. MYERS: I do have a few. 19 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Please come forward. 20 QUESTIONS BY MS. MYERS: 21 Q. I have a few questions about your testimony. 22 Do you have a copy of your testimony in front of you? 23 24 A. Yes. Q. 25 on Page 4_ Okay. On Question 9, Paragraph A-1, I have it ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 I TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 62 A. Okay. 2 Q. You conclude the proposed stormwater capital 3 rate will enhance the district's ability to fund sewer and 4 drainage infrastructure projects and/or related capital • program services. How did you reach that conclusion? 6 A. By having a funding source in order tc address 7 the flooding and erosion problems throughout the district, 8 that would enhance your ability to provide the service of 9 managing those issues. 10 Q. And the district currently does not have such 11 a funding source for flooding and erosion? 12 A. Correct, correct. The capital funding at this 13 point in time is directed for other types of projects. 14 Q. Okay. Question 9, Paragraph A-2, one 1� paragraph down, you concur with the district's position 16 that providing solutions to stormwater runoff issues will 17 benefit the service area as a whole. Can you elaborate on 18 that conclusion? 19 A. Certainly. If the capital program is 2C addressing erosion and flooding issues that are, you know, 21 even where they're on a private property, for instance in 22 the example cf a stream erosion, that runoff is occurring 23 and that erosion is occurring due to runoff throughout 24 that watershed, and so in that regard that's benefitting 25 the entire watershed area and the service area. www.alaris.us ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 63 1 It also, by addressing a lot of these 2 problems, will help with water quality type aspects that 3 are required to be managed throughout the service area. 4 Q. Thank you. Question 9, Paragraph A-3, you state the proposed stormwater rate structure imposes a 6 fair and reasonable burden on ratepayers and provides for equitable recovery of capital costs. How did you come to 8 that conclusion? A. Using an impervious area based approach for 10 assessing charges to property owners is an industry 11 accepted methodology. It reflects the runoff that 12 properties impose on the system. 13 Q. Is the tiered residential rate, is that also a 14 fair and reasonable way to assess the rates? 15 16 residential rate, and depending on the types of residents 17 for the service area, that might be appropriate. With a 18 large service area such as MSD's where you have a large 19 diversity of residential properties, a tiered rate 20 structure more fairly imposes that fee on the various 21 types of residential properties. 22 Q. And now I'm going to skip down to Number 7, so 23 It's Question 9, Paragraph A, Number 7. You testified 24 that the proposed stormwater rate will not impact the 25 current bond covenants. How did you reach that A. Yes. Some utilities have just a single www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 64 1 conclusion? 2 A. Because the district's proposal is to cash 3 finance the entire capital program and not be issuing 4 debt, it would not have an impact on your bond covenants. 5 Q. Okay. Question 20, I have Page 10, and this 6 question has to do with the second paragraph of Question 7 20. Are you aware of any stormwater utilities that 8 differentiate the level of imperviousness of compacted g dirt as a part of an impervious area based rate structure? 1C A. Yes. There are utilities who assess an 11 effective impervious area based on a runoff factor for 12 properties such as vacant properties that have compacted i3 soil and things, so even if they don't have impervious 14 area, if the soil is compacted from previous development 15 where it, in effect, is not pervious area as would be "6 defined from the -- compared to, say, a natural state, 17 that utilities do indeed implement that. 18 Q. And do you know how they determine those 19 characteristics? 20 A. Yes. The information would be based on 21 normally property tax records that indicate the vacant 22 property and then a runoff coefficient based on parcel 23 size would be assessed. So it's, you know, normally a low 24 type of runoff coefficient, but recognition that there is 25 increased runoff from that type of a property as opposed ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 22 23 1 to truly pervious property or pervious square footage. 2 Q. Okay. And can you identify some of the 3 municipalities or cities that do that? 4 Page 65 A. Yeah, I can provide a more detailed list out 5 of our rate survey that I wouldn't have off the top of my 6 head that, for instance, Wilmington, Delaware is a utility 7 that just went into effect here this year and that's one 8 example that has one. Springfield, Ohio has one as well. 9 There are a number that do take that approach. 10 Q. Okay. Question 25, there's been a lot of -- 11 you've already provided a lot of testimony around Question 12 25, but I just want to ask you, is it your testimony that 13 the effectiveness of a grant or credit -type program 14 depends on the value of that grant or credit compared to 15 the costs associated with the BMP? 16 A. I think that's a significant factor in 17 providing that incentive for most -- for a lot of 18 customers. There are customers who would have 19 altruistic -type reasons that would be incentivized by 20 things, but for, you know, the dollar value is important 21 for a lot of customers who might not otherwise, frankly, even be able to afford to even if they want to. MS. MYERS: Thank you. I have no further 24 questions. 25 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Ms. Myers. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 511712018 Page 66 1 MS. MYERS: Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN TOENIES: Mr. Neuschafer, do you have 3 questions for Ms. Lemoine? 4 MR. NEUSCHAFER: I do. 5 CHAIRMAN TCFN ES: Please come up. 6 QUESTIONS BY MR. NEUSCHAFER: 7 Q. Good morning. 8 A. Good morning. 9 Q. I would like to turn to Page 4 of your 10 testimony, Question 9, A--2 is what I'm looking at. There 11 you state that the district has stated that the projects 12 are expected to be primarily located on private property. 13 Have you seen any analysis prepared by the district or -4 otherwise of projects that will be on private property, 15 but will have impacts beyond that private parcel of 16 property? 17 A. Well, as I mentioned before, for instance, 18 with the example of a stream restoration, that those types 19 of projects not only would provide benefit to that -- 20 obviously that -- where that property is located, but also 21 within the recion as a whole in order to manage that 22 runoff and as well as the quality -related issues, so the 23 quality of that runoff as it enters other receiving 24 streams. 25 Q. So that's an -- is this example of stream www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 67 1 restorations, is this your example or is this a specific 2 project that you're referring to? 3 A. It's just a general example. 4 Q. Do you know, of the approximately 500 projects that MSD has identified, do you know how many of those 6 might be of a stream restoration -type project? 7 A. I do not. You might ask that question of 8 Nicole Young, who really delved deeper into the capital 9 program. 10 Q. Okay. So even if there are projects on private property that might have some impact on areas outside the private property, is it also fair to state that some of the projects on private property might only have an impact on that particular piece of property? A. Yeah. I couldn't state that, but I think there's two aspects to stormwater projects to look at is, one, you know, what -- who is benefitted by the project, but also how is the need for that project being incurred. So in other words, if something is happening to a property, but it's due to flow from -- you know, runoff from other properties or within the watershed as a whole, then there's an important aspect to that as well, that funding that solution from stormwater fee is appropriate. Q. I would like to move on. You indicated, as Ms. Myers asked, on Page 5 there is no impact on www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 i TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 68 wastewater bond covenants. I understand those because 2 there's been no proposal to fund any of this program 3 through bonds. Have you developed any opinion as to 4 whether you think bond funding might be appropriate for 5 this type of capital program? 6 A. There could be certain projects that are 7 regional in nature, have a long life that the utility 8 could evaluate bond financing. I think that you have to 9 look at the nature of the projects, will the utility have 10 an asset on their books as a result of that Project, as 11 well as the program. as a whole, when you're investing a 12 lot of money on a year-to-year basis, you've bond financed 13 a significant portion of it in the near term, it would 14 provide either the ability to fund more projects earlier 1� or have a lower rate, but down the line as that debt 16 compiles, you would have a larger revenue requirement down 17 the road due to the interest costs as well as just the 18 compiling and basically deferring cf paying for those 19 projects. 20 So on ongoing programs such as this, and even 21 though it's been defined as having a 30-year time period 22 as been testified, you know, we don't really know when or 23 if the program would end, you want to be able to manage 24 and not overly issue debt for those kind of programs. Sc 25 it's similar to a wastewater site, renewal/replacement of www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 69 1 the collection system. In that program year over year in 2 perpetuity you don't want to debt finance that kind of 3 program because you just increase costs down the road. 4 Q. You identified that there is a reasonable 5 nexus between the projected costs and the amount of 6 revenues that are being requested by MSD. What's your 7 understanding of how the $2.25 rate per ERU was set? 8 A. Well, as I stated in my testimony, my 9 understanding is that the $2.25 was determined based on 10 the district's review of the program needs and different 11 time horizons for addressing that on a current value basis 12 as well as public input and input from the public with 13 regard to how much they would be willing to pay to have 14 the program completed. 15 Q. So is it your testimony that there is a 16 reasonable nexus between the $2.25 charge per ERU and the 17 actual I guess impact associated with stormwater runoff 18 from that ERU? 19 A. So the $2.25 would provide the funding to 20 the level of revenue needed to fund the capital program as 21 has been projected. As I previously testified, there are 22 uncertainties in that, both in the cost of the program and 23 also in the revenue side as far as what the ultimate 24 billing -- the billable units will be as far as that, but 25 basing that fee based on impervious area, because runoff www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 70 and flooding issues are greatly determined by the amount 2 of impervious area, is a reasonable nexus and that's an 3 industry -accepted approach for establishing equitable user 4 fees. 5 Q. I'm trying not to ask questions that have 6 already been asked, so just bear with me for just a 7 minute. 8 A. That's fine. 9 Q. On Page 7, Question 18, you opine that the burden imposed on ratepayers is fair and reasonable. Was 11 there a specific definition of fair and reasonable that 12 you're using or is this -- how did you determine what you 13 believe to be fair and reasonable? 14 A. Well, when I evaluate this, I lock at it from 15 the standpoint of the rate structure, how it has been 1c' developed and the impact on the customers for providing 17 the necessary services, and fee based on impervious area 18 is a fair and reasonable way to recover the costs of this 19 type of capital program. 20 Q. Do you think it's fair and reasonable with 21 respect to nonreasonable -- or I'm sorry -- non-commercial 22 properties where some sort of storinwater mitigation 23 measures have already been implemented? Do you think it's 24 still fair and reasonable to impose rates on those 25 properties that aren't contributing or contributing only www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 71 1 minimally to stormwater runoff? 2 A. Well, I believe that the district's credit 3 program would provide for the requirements for those 4 non-residential customers to pursue credits for eligible 5 types of programs. 6 Q. Based on your understanding, what are those 7 what kind of eligible types of programs? 8 A. I'm not -- the rate proposal outlined, in 9 general, the types of facilities. My understanding is 10 that a detailed credit program manual has not been developed yet. That's common. That normally is 12 implemented during the implementation phase of the 13 stormwater fee, but the general types of requirements are 14 outlined in the proposal. 15 Q. On Page 10, Question 20 you identified the 16 district has not included parcels that don't have 17 structures, but may have surfaces including compacted dirt 18 that restrict infiltration and still contribute to 19 stormwater runoff. Do you have any estimate as to how 20 much property this is? 21 A. I don't, off the top of my head. I believe in 22 one of the discovery requests there was an answer at least 23 somewhat related to this. I don't recall if it was 24 specifically talking about just these types of properties 25 or if it was all undeveloped properties. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 72 Q. Would it be typical for other stormwater 2 systems who assess fees on an impervious area basis to 3 include these types of properties in their fees? 4 A. Not all utilities dc, but many do and it is, in my opinion, it is a reasonable requirement for these 6 type of properties. 7 Q. Are they assessed -- let's talk about a 8 property that just has compacted dirt. 9 A. Uh-huh. 10 Q. Is that assessed at the same rate, for Ii instance here $2.25 per ERU, or are they typically 12 assessed at some different rate? 13 A. it would be assessed at the same ERU rate, but 14 the number of ERUs that it's charged would be based on a 13 parcel area and a nominal runoff coefficient to calculate to effective impervious area. 17 Q. So ultimately the payer would pay a percentage 18 -- for the same amount of compacted dirt area, they would 19 just be paying some smaller percentage than if that were-- 20 A. Concrete. 21 Q. -- concrete or asphalt? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Given your experience with other stormwater 24 utilities, how does the level of cost estimation and 23 engineering analysis completed by MSD here compare to the ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 73 1 amount of cost estimation and engineering analysis 2 performed by other utilities when seeking their rates? 3 A. When you're looking at a 30-year program, 4 normally I don't see detailed cost estimates for all 5 projects. Conceptual type cost estimates to get a handle 6 on the magnitude of the problem, in my opinion, is the 7 norm. I'll defer to Nicole Young for her expertise in 8 working with capital program development day -in and 9 day -out for that more specifically. 10 Q. If we were talking about bonds here, issuing 11 bonds, would this level of engineering, planning and cost 12 estimation be sufficient to issue bonds? 13 A. No, but you wouldn't be issuing the bonds on a 14 30-year program. You would be issuing bonds based on the 15 work that would be completed in the next, you know, one, 16 two or three fiscal years, and the utility at that point 17 in time would have a higher level of cost estimation done. 18 It normally, even at that point, wouldn't necessarily be 19 final cost estimates, but would be a higher lever of cost 20 estimation than the conceptual level, so that would occur 21 at that appropriate point in time. 22 Q. So a bond program would only be looking at a 23 limited number of projects over a limited number of years? 24 A. That's required. Utilities are required to 25 expend bond funds within a specified period of time. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 Page 74 Q. And would that be fair and reasonable to give 2 ratepayers those same sorts of protections as far as the 3 duration of the program, the amounts of analysis and 4 estimation being performed? Why should bondholders have more protection than ratepayers? 6 A. I guess I don't understand the notion of 7 protection, per se. ratepayers are paying for the 3 program as the program proceeds. If at some point in time 9 the program is discontinued, the rate would be 10 discontinued in this -- under the district's current ._ process of cash financing the program. Certainly if they financerojects then even if the program 12 were to bond p � , 13 were to stop, the rate would have to continue in order to 14 pay that outstanding debt. 15 Q. You participated in the wastewater hearings in 16 2015, correct? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. And you're aware that there is -- MSD has 19 indicated that there's another upcoming proposal in 2019 2C for wastewater? 21 A. That is correct- 22 Q. Have you performed any analysis on the 23 cumulative impact of this rate with the 2015 wastewater 24 rate increases and potentially also including the 2019 25 proposal, although I understand we don't know what's in www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 75 1 that proposal? 2 A. Correct. No, I haven't, and we • you know, 3 we don't know what the wastewater rate proposal will be. 4 Certainly customer affordability, as they are developing 5 that wastewater proposal, is something that they will need 6 to look at and something that the Rate Commission will 7 have to evaluate as well. 8 MR. NEUSCHAFER: That's all I've got. Thank 9 you. 10 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Neuschafer. 11 Appreciate that. Ms. Stump, do you have any further 12 questions for Ms. Lemoine? 13 MS. STUMP: I do not have any questions. 14 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Mr. Brockmann. 15 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER BROCKMANN: 16 Q. Do you have any experience with similar 17 service providers specifically on erosion stormwater 18 control rates? 19 A. No. My experience has been with stormwater 20 utilities that are funded, as I had mentioned before, 21 impervious area based charge for funding all aspects of 22 the program. There are utilities that will have perhaps a 23 sales tax or some sort of funding for part of the program, 24 but I haven't been involved in developing one specifically 25 just for capital. ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 76 1 Q. So are you aware of examples of districts with 2 similar services provided specifically for erosion and 3 stormwater control? 4 A. The programs that I've seen, it's normally 5 just all capital, so it would be erosion and stormwater 6 control as well as any other capital requirements. 7 Q. But not as a separate itemization. MSD is 8 proposing that they provide the maintenance, but they 9 don't have the money or the funds to address the IC improvements or reduce the problems. ll A. A lot of utilities don't have funding in place 72 to adequately be investing in their system and providing 13 adequate capital programs, but this -- the way MSD is 14 funding their program is different than those that I have 75 worked with. 16 Q. The programs that you have worked with, so, 17 for example, the municipalities or the district, whoever 18 it might be, they have a property that gets flooded 19 continuously, they buy it out, do you have any experience 20 or knowledge of how those properties are handled? Do they 2 retain ownership of those properties or what transpires 22 after they've mitigated the damages simply by buying out 23 the property? 24 A. Initially then the utility does own the 25 property, or if it's a city utility, the city might own www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 77 1 the property, often times go into a land bank and then 2 down the line if there are ways to sell that property for 3 an approved use that wouldn't again create problems down 4 the road, then they would do that. 5 Q. So are you implying that there's some 6 oversight with future use of that property by someone as 7 to whether it's suitable to be redeveloped and not 8 contribute or be a continued program in, say, a floodplain 9 where it's continually flooding? 10 A. I believe so, yes. You wouldn't want that property being redeveloped. If a homeowner were bought 12 out, you wouldn't want that property, you know, to be sold 13 and a house put on it, for instance. 14 COMMISSIONER BROCKMANN: Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Mr. Schoedel. 16 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER SCHOEDEL: 17 Q. There's been several discussions about the 18 level of engineering review estimates. You had referred 19 back to Nicole for several of these. Can she address 20 those as far as does she feel that these have been 21 adequately reviewed enough? 22 MS. STUMP: She's the next witness. 23 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: We'll look at that when she 24 comes forward. 25 COMMISSIONER SCHOEDEL: Thank you. www.alaris.us ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 78 1 CHAIRMAN TCENJES: Any further questions for 2 Ms. Lemcine by any of the Rate Commissioners? I have a 3 question. 4 QUESTIONS BY CHAIRMAN TOENJES: 5 Q. We've talked about the percentage of these 6 this work that's on private property. What percentage of 7 the overall scope in terms of dollars, do you have that 8 percentage breakdown? 9 A. L don't. You know, there was testimony that 1: said a lot of the projects would be on private property. 11 I believe in MIEC's first discovery request the district 12 stated that 75 percent would be public, so I'm not. 13 certain. Q. 75 percent are public property? 15 A. I don't want to the misstate, so 16 Q. That's fine. 17 A. So it may not be public orooerty. It was 75 18 percent of caoital improvements will be assets owned by 13 MSD, so I conflated two different things there. 20 MS. STUMP: Can you stare where you're reading 21 that? 22 A. Yes. That's first discovery request, Exhibit 23 MSD-41, A, Question 1, Response A. 24 Q. So of the remaining 25 percent that is not on 25 MSD property, what percent of that would be on public ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 79 1 property versus private property? 2 A. Right. So I -- 3 Q. Or I'm sorry, what percent would be capital 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A. That's correct. Right, you would -- 11 Q. So I'm thinking it would be important to 12 understand what those percentages may be. 13 A. Right. And in this -- in the district's 14 response here they had indicated that 75 percent of the 15 capital improvements will be assets owned by MSD. They go 16 on to say that most will be in permanent easements 17 constructed on private property. So I conflated two 18 different things, the asset owners versus where the 19 property is located, but -- 20 Q. I would think that would have a pretty 21 impactful outcome depending on if bond funding is used, 22 what the potential might be. 23 A. Right. You would have to identify projects 24 where bond funding would be appropriate and only issue 25 bonds for those kind of projects. improvements that would be owned by the district versus work that would be done on private property? And I'm asking these questions because obviously if you're talking about bonding, you're not going to bond improvements. I'm assuming you're not going to use bonding money for improvements that are done on private property- www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 80 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you. Any further 2 questions for Ms. Lemoine? Thank you. Ms. Stump, do you 3 have an additional witness? 4 MS. STUMP: I do. Ms. Nicole Young. CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Nicole, is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and 1 ri t-hin.j ID,_,'_ the truth? 8 MS. YOUNG: It is. 9 CHAIRMAN ICENJES: Thank you. Mr. Schoedel, 10 would you like to ask your question of Ms Young at this 11 point? 12 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER SCHOEDEL: 13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's been a lot 14 of discussion about the credibility of the list of 15 projects and the amount of estimating and engineering that's been done. Do you think that level is very typical 17 to what you've seen in other rate cases like this? 18 A. : do. And not provided in the exhibit that 19 you all have- received, but MSD has referenced the 53 20 binders plus three additional general binders that they 21 have available for review, and I did come to the district 22 or. May 1st to review those documents. 23 They have laid them out on the conference room 24 upstairs, which is a table that seats about 18 people, and 2� it filled that table. So there's four -inch binders, three ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 81 1 to four -inch binders for each watershed and it goes 2 through in detail the engineering that has been done, the 3 planning that has been done, the cost estimates that have 4 been done for that. So yes, this is very typical of this 5 phase of a project. 6 Q. In that process were you able to see their 7 risk prioritization method that they used for each one of 8 those projects? 9 A. I was, yes. 10 Q. So the ones that are established, prioritized, 11 those, in your opinion, if they were not addressed now, 12 would the potential cost to ratepayers increase if they're 13 not addressed soon? 14 A. The costs will increase over time because the 15 cost of money, yes. 16 Q. So the project or the problem with that -- 17 related to those could get worse and impact ratepayers 18 more if it's not addressed now? 19 A. That's true. 20 COMMISSIONER SCHOEDEL: Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Other Rate Commissioners, 22 questions for Ms. Young at this point? 23 QUESTIONS BY MR. MAHFOOD: 24 Q. Nicole, in your testimony -- bear with me here 25 for a second, we may have different -- it's Question 11. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 82 In there could you explain to me, just to start off with 2 here, what solution points, what exactly does that mean? 3 It's at the last sentence as you're talking about 4 additional revisions to the prioritization process. 5 A. And r do lust want to open their actual 6 prioritization schedule we're talking about. So in their 7 crioritization system they have the problem/solve category 8 which includes flooding, erosion and then it goes down to 9 talk about risk mitigation and then they have a solution 13 benefit category. Included in that are regional points, 11 environmental water quality points and some miscellaneous 12 points that co co easement and public education. 13 Q. Okay. Is it conceivable that those points '4 could be -- in the priority -establishing process, that 15 those points could be added to or skewed towards this 16 concept of reducing impervious surface in the future or 17 reducing the risk of more impervious surface being built 18 by getting to the project list? Is that possible or is :.9 that kind of pie in -- too much pie in the sky? 23 A. My belief, Commissioner, is that that's a 21 separate issue. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. I know the district does have regulations when 24 it comes to increase impervious area, that's on the 25 regulatory side, and they try very hard to work with www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 83 1 developers and residents to balance the impervious area 2 and the BMPs that are provided on new construction, and I 3 believe that is separate to the issues we're dealing with 4 today. 5 Q. Thank you. Further down in the answer in 6 Question 12, I really am taking to heart what you said 7 there about -- and I know we've talked about it in other 8 ways -- that increasing the incentives or credits for BMPs 9 feels good and I think is the correct thing to do to 10 change people's attitudes, but it may not have the impact 11 on impervious surface in the future, and just as we're 12 talking about this today, I'm beginning to see that 13 potential if you're going to use that as kind of a 14 foundational approach, that grants and education are two 15 key components for the future. 16 And, you know, I'm just trying to, as I ferret 17 this out and look, as Pam has talked about on the 18 financial side, Nicole, you kind of the engineering side 19 of this, seems like the picture is becoming clearer for me 20 that the additions that I think may be necessary will be 21 something that approaches grants issue and education, 22 because that's really what we're trying do. BMPs are not 23 that effective in solving the problem, then we have to do 24 something to get people to move in the right direction. 25 A. If I may. www.alaris:us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 84 i Q. Please, yes- 2 A. I would say it is very difficult to line up 3 green infrastructure improvements with the hardscaping 4 that's required to solve the engineering problems we're 5 facing today. I will say that MSD has done an incredibly 6 good job of reaching out to the public through Project 7 Clear and talking about the grants that are available for 8 rain gardens and rain barrels and a number of other 9 methods that could be done. 10 We have an abundance of water in St. Louis, 11 and I'm sure the folks at the call center here can attest 12 that most days they do not receive calls about these 13 issues, but when it does rain, it becomes a problem, and 14 so those are the issues that we're really focused on. And _5 : think earlier there was some question about the number 16 of projects. 17 _ did do lust a guick analysis of the first 18 100 projects on the list, not a total look at the 500, 19 because the Excel spreadsheet you guys were provided was 20 password protected, but 92 of those are what I would 21 consider hardscape construction programs, three of them 22 are buyouts, and five of them are stabilization projects, 23 so we really are talking overwhelmingly about a problem 24 that is engineering solution based with hardscaoe 25 solution. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 85 1 COMMISSIONER MAHFOOD: Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Mr. Palans. 3 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER PALANS: 4 Q. Thank you. Ms. Young, as I understand it, you 5 described your role in this proceeding as advising the 6 Commission on two things, the capital projects and the 7 prioritization system. Is that a fair characterization of 8 how you envision your role here? 9 A. It is. 10 Q. And with regard to your role in the 11 prioritization system, as I understand it, what the 12 district does is it looks at the problem and looks at the 13 benefit of the solution from that problem and then divides 14 that by the overall cost. And I'm stating it very simply, 15 but it's basically -- I would call it a cost -benefit 16 analysis, correct? 17 A. I think that's a fair characterization. 18 Q. So they identify the cost, they look at the 19 amount of the benefit that those costs are spread upon, 20 and that ratio allows this prioritization to be scored, 21 correct? 22 A. Yes, I believe that's correct. 23 Q• Have you ever heard the term score card used 24 at MSD? Is that a fair characterization; that this is an 25 MSD score card? I i J www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 86 1 A. I don't believe they use that particular term, 2 but I think that is a fair characterization. 3 Q. Okay. So the 100 projects that you looked at 4 in the binders that were prioritized, those were 5 prioritized consistent with this, in my words, MSD score 6 card, right? 7 A. I didn't look at 100 projects in the binders_ 8 The binders included all the projects that have been 9 evaluated for the entire district. I did review some of 10 those in detail, and yes, they are consistent with the 11 scoring methodology that MSD uses. 12 Q. And this score card I have seen, you may not i3 have it in front of you, but there's an MSD Exhibit 30-J 14 that they describe as a prioritization worksheet, guidelines for use dated October 10, 2006. Does that 16 bring any recollection► to you? 17 A. yes. 18 Q. And have you reviewed that document? 1g A. I have. 20 Q. And so this score card, in my words, has been 21 around for 11, 12 years, correct? 22 A. In its original form, it predates 1995, 23 Q. And is this -- I believe you indicate that 24 this prioritization system where it allocates points for 25 prioritization of projects is unique to the district. Is www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 87 1 that your understanding? 2 A. The district has created the system, yes- 3 Q. And based upon your review of this 4 prioritization schematic, do you believe it to be re 5 a methodology to prioritize projects? 6 A. I do, and just some background on that. I 7 have been involved in looking at this particular scoring 8 system and modeling a number of projects and then going 9 back and making recommendations to the district on how it 10 could be modified, so it has been modified over several 11 times within the history of the scoring sheet to improve 12 upon it. 13 Q. But it's been created in order to be fair -- 14 tell me if this is correct. It's been created in order to 15 be fair, defensible, objective and consistent, correct? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. And it does the job? 18 A. I believe so. 19 Q. If we were to look at the capital projects, 20 and there's been a lot of discussion of the pricing, the 21 cost of fixing the projects, and in the district's own 22 proposal they indicate that the fix, the cost of this fix 23 is based upon a minimal amount of detailed information 24 available regarding geotechnical conditions. So if 25 geotechnical conditions should change, that could have a www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 88 1 material impact upon the costs, correct? 2 A. That's quite typical in these circumstances. 3 I believe the district does have quite a long history of 4 gectechnicai issues in cur region and I think they have 5 done a good job at estimating those within the oroject 6 costs. 7 Q. But geotechnical conditions also include such 8 things as sinkholes, do they not? 9 A. Could, yes. 1C Q. You really don't know what's in a sinkhole unless you go down and put a camera down a sinkhole, ? 2 right? 13 A. That's true. 14 Q. So that could have a material effect with 15 regard to the pricing and the fix of the cost, correct? 16 A. I would say overall in the district Program 17 those experiences are rare, but can be extremely costly. 18 Q. And utility relocation is another factor that 19 could impact costs, right? 2C A. Yes. 21 Q. And easement requirements could impact costs? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And other site -specific issues that may impact 24 costs? 25 A. Yes. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 89 1 Q. And I believe you testified that with regard 2 to 100 of the projects, the first 100 projects that were 3 reviewed that were prioritized, I think you said there 4 were three projects that were identified that required 5 buyouts? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And was there any appraisal performed as to 8 what the cost of that potential buyout would be with 9 regard to those projects? 10 A. I don't know if there was an appraisal per se, 11 but it looks like they have evaluated that property and 12 assigned an appropriate cost to it. 13 Q. There's no -- how did they evaluate that 14 property, can you tell? 15 A. I cannot tell. Typically records from the 16 county or the city will be used. 17 Q. So just a general assessment, tax assessment? 18 A. Typically that's a good first level of 19 assessment of a property, yes. 20 Q. Tax assessment is a good indication of the 21 market value of a property? 22 A. I'm not sure all of the methods that MSD used 23 in this particular analysis, but it does look like they 24 have done some analysis of those properties. 25 Q. And I think you would agree with me, if we had www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 90 $562 million available today, could you guarantee that all 2 of these projects would be fixed? 3 A. I don't think in any civil engineering program 4 there's ever a guarantee. Q. And if there's a heavy rain next week, there 6 may be a number of different additional complaints placed 7 into the MSD database; that's possible also, correct? 8 A. I would say that's possible, but the 9 complaints that the district has collected for these 10 projects have been happening over a significant amount of 11 time and I think that there is a good understanding of the 12 problems within the region. 13 Q. And this fix of these problems is going to 14 occur over 30 years, right? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. And there's going to be more rains over the 17 next 30 years, right? 18 A. There will be. 19 Q. So in your opinion, does this $30 million rate 20 proposal adequately address and guarantee that we're going 21 to fix our problems, or are we going to be looking at 22 additional costs to complete this remediation? 23 A. As civil engineers, our job is never done, 24 We're here to serve the community in the best way we know 25 how. I think that the district has put forward a program www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117I2018 Page 91 1 that adequately addresses the problems that they know 2 today, and as Mr. Hoelscher has testified, it is a 3 flexible program that will be modified over time. 4 Q. And do you believe that the district should 5 consider, given the limited resources that it has from 6 ratepayers for this $30 million, and given the total issue 7 to remediate this -- all of these projects, do you believe 8 that the district should encourage third party 9 contributions to remediate these projects? 10 A. As a civil engineer, I find that to be a 11 difficult question to answer because we are concerned with equity when it comes to the overall provisions of service 13 to the community. So we want to make sure that because 14 one community has the privilege of additional funds, that 15 their projects are not moved up in the schedule, and I 16 think Mr. Hoelscher also testified to that. 17 I think that the district does have some 18 ability to move funds from public -private -- 19 public -private partnerships to projects within a given 20 fiscal year and they have testified to that. 21 Q. Let me ask you about that. Today the district 22 is seeking $30 million per year to dedicate to these 23 projects in this priority system, correct? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. Let's assume that the district were the www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 92 beneficiary of a $10 million third party contribution 2 while this program is in effect, and that $10 million 3 contribution could identify additional projects that 4 needed remediation. The district would still have an 5 additional $10 million to remediate other projects based 6 upon the same prioritization system that you identified as fair, defensible, feasible and objective, would it not? 8 A. It's my experience that private funds are 9 generally not provided to pro? ects that don't provide 10 revenue back, and I -- my experience is that I don't see 11 that happening very often. 12 Q. I'm not asking you what your -- I'm asking you 13 a question. If we have third party contributions of $10 14 million that are contributed consistent with this prioritization system such that the district is not 16 spending $10 million of its funds, but third parties are 17 spending $10 million of their funds, and the district had 18 the ability to use that full $30 million to alleviate 19 other projects, aren't we fixing our problems quicker? 20 A. That would, of course, be the case. 21 Q. And isn't that fair based upon the system and 22 prioritization system that you identified? 23 A. It would be fair as long as it didn't change 24 the prioritization of the projects. 25 Q. The prioritization of the projects are based www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 93 1 upon cost -benefit, correct? 2 A. But the cost -benefit is irrelevant of the 3 sources of the funds. 4 Q. But if the costs of the district are reduced through third party contributions, the project 6 prioritizations would move up, correct? That's the system. That's the fair system? 8 A. I don't believe the prioritization would 9 change based on the source of the funds. The 10 prioritization is based on the costs of the project. 11 Q. And the funding that is remediated, reducing 12 the district's costs are scored on that system that you 13 identified as fair? 14 A. Could you repeat that? 15 Q. We talked about this prioritization worksheet, 16 DASD 30-J, the guidelines for use. It's been around or 17 it's identified as being here since 2006. It ultimately 18 develops a cost -benefit ratio when all problem and solution points are assigned, you divide the cost estimate 20 for the project and enter it on the worksheet. The 21 cost -benefit ratio is automatically computed. The cost is A. 22 a cost of the district, the funds that it takes to fix a 23 project; that's it, isn't it? 24 The cost is the cost of the project, yes. 25 Q. And if the district's costs of the project are www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/1712018 Page 94 1 reduced because third party funds are contributed, that's 2 good, isn't it? 3 A. The cost is not reduced. The cost remains the 4 same. The source of the funds changes. 5 Q. And if the district is not expending its funds 6 with respect to that project, it can use its funds to 7 remediate other projects within our 520 square mile 8 district, we get our projects fixed quicker, correct? 9 A. Public -private partnerships benefit the 10 overall civil infrastructure, yes. Q. Thank you. I just have one other question, 12 and that is Question 12 on your testimony. The question 13 is do the district's proposed incentive and credit program R4 provide sufficient incentive to achieve a reduction in 15 effective impervious area within the service area, and 16 your answer is that the incentive and credit programs 17 identified provide nominal benefits to property owners; 18 that's your testimony? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What can we do to change that? How can we 21 provide more than nominal benefits to property owners? 22 How can we incentivize property owners to contribute? 23 A. I believe we've talked about a number of those 24 ways today, 25 Q. Okay. Well, help me out, because we haven't www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 1 come up with one that works that I've heard. 2 Page 95 A. Well, that's a separate question. My belief 3 is that green solutions will not solve the problems that 4 are presented in the district's program. 5 Q. They don't hurt, do they? 6 A. They definitely don't hurt, unless you're 7 taking away funds from those projects, and so to provide 8 additional incentives or credits that would reduce funds 9 from the overall program, I do believe would be hurting 10 the projects that are being proposed. 11 COMMISSIONER PALANS: I have no further 12 questions. Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Palans. 14 Further questions from any of the other Rate Commissioners 15 at this time? 16 COMMISSIONER CROYLE: I have one comment. I 17 participated in an outreach program as part of Clear for 18 doing the rain garden and things like that in our 19 neighborhood. St. Louis has old neighborhoods that do not 20 remediate by additional projects, and that's one of the 21 reasons that the incentive programs don't work. It's not 22 that people don't want to do it. It's that you can't 23 implement them because the way the structure is. 24 We had already had our raised beds around the 25 house to collect rain water runoff. We maintain a green ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 96 strip in our driveway, we have rain barrels, so therefore 2 we weren't eligible for any of the grants. Not that we 3 1 mean -- so I think the nature of the neighborhoods in 4 St. Louis contribute to that. I think you need to note 5 that, that St. Louis is unique. We have a lot of water, a 6 lot of older neighborhoods. We have a lot of 7 infrastructure that's -- I mean you can do things, but 8 it's not going to help in those terms. 9 CHAIRMAN TOENJES : Thank you. Yes. 10 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER RATZKI: 11 Q. Nicole, it sounds like you spent a lot of time 12 looking at those reports, and from what I can get from 13 your testimony in Question Number 11, that at least two or 14 three consultants have used that prioritization system in 15 the past in stormwater studies for MSD. We're talking 16 about -- and I guess the fact has been made that MSD 17 hasn't been able to spend very much capital funds on 18 stormwater during that time period. Now if we go ahead 19 with this rate, we're going to probably have six to 10 23 times as much money as the district has ever had for 21 capital improvements and a lot of projects. 22 Do you see the possibility of correlating the 23 post -construction benefits and effects of these projects 24 back to that prioritization system to make that 25 prioritization system more accurate and better to be used www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 97 1 by the district going forward over 30 years? 2 A. Yes, and that was a recommendation that I 3 suggested in my testimony. 4 COMMISSIONER RATZKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Ratzki. 6 Further -- yes, Mr. Goss. 7 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER GOSS: 8 Q. Nicole, Question 9 of your testimony, if you 9 look at that, if I understand your answer, just to 10 paraphrase, you believe that the district's evaluation of 11 the capital projects was sufficient; is that right? 12 A. I da. 13 Q. And the methodology was sufficient? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And reasonable and prudent? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. So you would disagree with Mr. Gorman's 18 testimony? 19 A. I would, and based on his testimony, I do not 20 believe that he has reviewed the same information that I 21 have. I would encourage him to look at the 53 plus three 22 binders that are available. 23 Q. And in Question 10 I believe your answer 24 I'm paraphrasing -- but make sure I got it right, is that 25 the district's cost estimates calculation was adequate, www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 98 its methodology was adequate; is that right? 2 A. It is, and I know there's been some discussion 3 of the testimony that it only took a few minutes to 4 provide the cost estimates. When you're looking at cost 5 estimates, there's a number of steps to do that. There's 6 a quantity takeoff, there are a number of steps that are 7 taken to assess the unit value costs that are put into 8 that. So while each project may only take a few moments 9 tc actually calculate that end resin..,, there is 10 substantial work that goes in before that to come up with _1 the data that goes into that. 12 Q. And so you would believe that their cost 13 calculations are reasonable and prudent? 14 A. _ do. 15 Q. And it's come up several times that there's 16 been no inclusion of the cost of acquiring easements in 17 these cost estimates_ Do you recall that? 18 A. I do recall that. However, MSD does have a 19 lump sum per year that is included in the CIBF. 20 Q. So these individual projects, MSD has a 21 standard now that they put in that cost estimate for 22 easements; is that right? Did I hear you correctly? 23 A. Based on the testimony that has been provided, 24 I don't believe that's accurate. My understanding is that 25 the district has not provided specific costs assigned to www.alaris.us ALAR1S LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 99 1 easements in the individual project costs, but that is 2 provided as a lump sum annually within the program. 3 Q. So of this -- let me see if I can approach it A this way. So of the $30 million that we're going to be able to spend in one year, MSD has already estimated -- 6 let's pick a number -- that $1 million will go to 7 easements; is that right? Some number -- 8 A. I believe it's around $900,000, so yes. Q. There you go. I was pretty close. I'm going 10 to buy a lottery ticket. I'm buying a lottery ticket 11 today, I'm telling you. So there is a number in that $30 12 million that they did allocate for easements? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. And that, it's your understanding, is 15 based on from historical costs? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And looking at Question 11 of your testimony 18 where you were asked if the district's prioritization 19 system is common practice and is it appropriate, you 20 comment that the district has -- it's the second paragraph 21 -- second paragraph, second sentence, "The district has 22 modeled a number of projects with the algorithm from the 23 scoring." Do you know how many projects the district has 24 modeled? 25 A. I don't, offhand. When I was involved in a www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 100 1 program with the district, there were thousands of 2 projects that we modeled using the system, and then it was 3 adjusted from there. 4 Q. Do you know why it was adjusted? 5 A. There were some projects that weren't -- as 6 you can see, over time -- the system was originally based 7 on prioritization of a scoring of one to nine. That 8 scoring did not provide enough differentiation between 9 projects and there were some issues in insuring that 10 projects were lumped within the same category of problem, and so over time that was adusted. 12 And in locking at the overall projects, 1 13 think there were times where there was question about how 14 some projects were falling cut within that ranking, so 1G there was some technical adjustment to that algorithm to 16 make sure that projects were falling within the 17 appropriate ranking. 18 Q. How would you know if they fall in the 1° appropriate ranking? What does appropriate mean? 20 A. That's based on engineering experience of 21 understanding the projects and how they differ and just a 22 technical decision on how they should be prioritized. 23 Q. I'm just stepping back. 24 A. Sure. 25 Q. Because I'm not an engineer. What do you mean ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alarls.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 1 by appropriate? Help me with that context. I don't 2 understand what that means. 3 Page 101 A. If we were looking at five different projects, 4 there would be I guess a gut reaction on which projects 5 would be more effective, which would provide more benefit, 6 which would solve more problems for the community, and 7 that was looked at for a number of projects. And then the 8 scoring was adjusted for that, so then you can go back and 9 rerun the model to see if they fall out in the correct 10 prioritization. 11 Q. Okay. And were there -- are there rankings or 12 cutoffs -- let me go back now. Were there rankings or 13 cutoffs for this prioritization like 200 to 190 is an 14 excellent or really problematic project and -- is there 15 cutoffs in the system? 16 A. Typically that is done. I don't know for this 17 specific program. That analysis was not provided, but I 18 think that does fall out when you look at the CIRP as far 1g as how they're annualized for the budget so the highest 20 prioritization projects are performed earlier in the 21 program. 22 Q. But when you said that they adjusted the model 23 based on what their kind of belief was as to the -- where 24 the projects should fall, so there's some subjective 25 component; is that right? www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 102 1 A. That's correct. It is, yes. 2 Q. And so there's kind of -- in some ways it's 3 result oriented, the way they adjusted this model, because 4 they said this project isn't coming out where it should be? n A. When the model was originally being set up and 7 tested, yes, that's correct. There is some engineering 8 subjective judgment that is put into that. 9 Q. And so we talked about the scale, it was one 10 to nine, and then Horner & Shifrin issued a report, pretty 11 lengthy, in '95 and said -- made a recommendation that the 12 scale be changed, and MSD responded to that and came up 13 with a one to 200 scale, or is it 10 to 200 scale; is that 14 right? 15 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. And you said that allowed for greater 17 differentiation of projects, right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. So tell me more about that 2C differentiation. What did that cause on this scale? Did 21 you get a more normalized curve for projects that you 22 weren't seeing before? If so, how many projects were 23 falling into the worst category and so on? How does that 24 help? 2F A. I was not involved in chat specific cro;ect www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 103 1 and so I couldn't say directly, but typically when you 2 have a greater differentiation, it does allow, when you're 3 talking about this many projects, it does allow for what I 4 would call bucketing of projects in different categories 5 so that you see that the higher ranked projects are 6 prioritized in the higher level. 7 Q. And what's magic about 200? Why wouldn't you 8 use 350? 9 A. You could. 10 Q. And you could use 500? 11 A. Of course. 12 Q. So there's nothing objective about that; it's 13 just a number that MSD felt was giving enough 14 differentiation to these projects that they felt 15 comfortable; is that a fair statement? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. And so when I'm thinking about these numbers 18 and the differentiation of these numbers, if I have a 19 project that comes out with a score of 70 and another 20 project that comes out with a score of 69, is that 21 meaningful? 22 A. Typically, no. 23 Q. Okay. What level of point difference do I 24 need to see to where I would say that's meaningful, that's 25 a different degree of project? www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 104 1 A. Yeah, and I'm just looking at some of the 2 cost -benefit pints that are assigned for projects we're 3 looking at. c Q. Are you looking at that worksheet which was 5 Exhibit K; is that right, or something else? 6 A. I'm actually looking at the CIR?, Q. Okay. 8 9 one of the A. I'm looking at the spreadsheet, bay it is in 1C Q. There's an Exhibit 30-L -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- that has a list of projects. 13 A. So when we look at rankings here, as you can 14 see, in the first year we're looking at scores that are 15 generally above one or thereabouts. You know, there's 16 some projects with scores of -- high scores of 22, and 17 then as you go lower in the program into the final years, 18 most of the scores are below one. 19 Q. So this is your first run-through of these 20 projects; is that right, or MSD's first run-through? 21 A. I'm not sure how many times the district has 22 locked at the prioritization of these, but they have been 23 looked at several times since 1995. 24 Q. Does MSD have a rule as to when they revisit 25 this ranking system, like every year or every five years, www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 105 1 anything that you know of? 2 A. I don't believe so. Typically projects of 3 this sort haven't changed over decades of time. If I can 4 give some anecdote, I worked on a project in 2001 to 5 provide prioritizations to a number of these types of 6 projects and I saw it studied three times since then. It 7 came up in a proposal to do the engineering design, I 8 think in 2016. That project, when we went out to talk to 9 the homeowners during the engineering of the project, one 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 yards, water in the street for many, many years. And I 17 think that, you know, when you look at these, the problems 18 haven't changed, you know, the solutions haven't really 19 changed. It's really a matter of getting the funding to 20 implement them at this point. 21 Q. So let me -- two questions just on this 22 Exhibit 30-L. It doesn't look to me like all 500 some -odd 23 projects are listed here. So which projects are listed 24 here and which ones aren't, which fell out? 25 A. Yeah. Sure. So the projects that are listed I _ of the homeowners came out to me, he actually was a laborer, and he broke out in tears because he had not had his project addressed in decades of time and he was so happy that someone was there that actually cared. So many of these projects homeowners have been dealing with water in their basements, water in their back www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 106 1 are through fiscal year 24, and so I -- my understanding 2 is the district took a first cut cf the projects that 3 would be done first and they started to program those out. 4 Q. Based on this priority ranking number? 5 A. ves. 6 Q. And a number of these projects have a category 7 of erosion, so wouldn't it be true that erosion would be 8 something that would be ongoing over time? 9 A. No: if you provide an engineering solution to 10 stopit. Q. Well, I understand that, but we aren't 12 providing engineering solution, because we don't have a 13 stormwater program. 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. So if you had these projects listed and 16 there's erosion, is it reasonable to assume that this 17 erosion is getting worse with time? 18 A. Usually, yes. 19 Q. And so how do you know, with any degree of 20 engineering certainty, that this ranking system is 21 accurate given the time, the effect of time on the 22 severity of these problems? 23 A. Typically homeowners with erosion problems 24 will call year after year after year. I've heard them 25 sometimes speak at some of the MSC board meetings. The A ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 Page 107 1 district has a pretty good understanding of the major 2 erosion problems that are happening and I think that does 3 get reflected because of the caller complaints in the cost -benefit analysis. Q. So if this is the priority of the projects, is 6 it reasonable for me to assume that the projects in fiscal 7 year 25 would be starting below .71 or something like that? I'm kind of looking for the lowest number here .67. 9 I notice it going down from .67, or is that not right? 10 A. Yeah, some of these -- I don't have a full 11 understanding of all the reasons why the district has 12 programmed these into specific years. Some of them, it 13 looks like, are phased, so that may have some effect on 14 it. I think some of them are, you know, smaller projects 15 that may have been connected to larger projects. 16 I'm really not sure of all of the reasons why 17 they've been prioritized this way. It does look like they 18 are lumped into, as I said earlier, like buckets of lq priority rankings and that those that have a higher 20 ranking are being programmed first. 21 Q. Now, is the listing on here, this will be the 22 order in which they will be taken, right? 23 A. MSD typically will take a grouping of projects 24 in any fiscal year and compete those out depending on the 25 design of the project and the site conditions. As www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 108 Councilman Palans has referred to, those projects during 2 engineering may slide a little bit, but that is typically ? based on that fiscal year. 4 Q. Okay. So am I understanding the chart correctly that the first project that will be done is the 6 Hallatead Storm Channel Phase IV because that's the first 7 project listed? 8 A. I don't believe that's necessarily the case, 9 but those grouping of projects within FY-22 will happen -- 10 I mean will start within chat period of time. 11 Q. So it wouldn't be correct for me to assume the 12 Dunleer Avenue 6901 Storm Sewer will be the first project 13 to be performed? 14 A. I don't believe that the district has gone 15 through that level of planning at this stage to put these 16 into a greater schedule for the district. It's just based 17 on what fiscal year. That's the basis of the information 18 that they have at this point and I think that's reasonable 19 given where we are. 20 Q. And the Dunleer project has a 22.4 priority 21 rating, which I think is the highest on this list of 22 projects. Would you agree? Highest I found. 21 A It seems to be, yes. 24 Q. So the -- and that has a cost budget of 25 $28,000; is that right? ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 109 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Do you have any idea what went into that 3 $28,000? 4 A. We could look into that, but I don't have that 5 here today. 6 Q. But that data is available -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- at MSD? A. Yes. 10 Q. And then the Hallstead project, that was $5.2 million, so help me understand why Dunleer -- and this 12 will help me understand this cost -benefit ratio. So the 13 Hallstead project is obviously very expensive and it gets 14 a lower priority rating of 1.25 over the Dunleer project 15 which gets a very high priority, is very cheap, $28,000, 16 relatively speaking. 17 So is that because that's the way the 18 cost -benefit formula is working and so this is a 1g relatively inexpensive project so its priority ranking 20 moves up, or am I misunderstanding that? 21 A. Looking at the way these are ranked, and the 22 district has a couple of different formats in the CIRP. 23 To me, these look to be categorized based on budget, so 24 within fiscal year 2 you have category of erosion, 25 localized flooding, and there are -- actually there's a www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 110 1 regional flooding project at the bottom, but each of those 2 categories are then ranked by budget, so if you'll look at 3 the budget line, it goes the first Project is $5 million 4 and it goes down from there and then it restarts at the 5 Loretta project at, you know, $1.6 million and goes down. 6 So this is not a schedule of how the projects would be 7 performed. It's just a listing of the projects for that 8 fiscal year that is -- it's not any sort of scheduled 9 format_ 10 Q. Okay. So is it accurate to say that MSD has 11 taken a grouping of erosion projects and done a priority 12 ranking and then a grouping of local flooding projects, 13 then a priority ranking, and then also selected a regional 14 flooding project for fiscal year 22 and then engaged in 15 the same thing for fiscal year 23 and 24? 16 A. 1 don't know that they were necessarily 17 prioritized into that fiscal year because they were either 18 an erosion or localized flooding, but they were listed in 19 this table that way. My understanding is the district has 20 categorized them based on the priority ranking and this 21 table has listing, you know, that has been alphabetized or 22 provided in high to low numbers based on certain 23 categories. 24 Q. Okay. Let me -- I'm going to take another 25 shot at that. Is -- what I thought I heard you saying is www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 111 1 MSD has three kinds of projects, erosion projects, local 2 flooding and then regional flooding? 3 A. For this fiscal year those projects are listed 4 in this fiscal year. I believe there's probably other 5 projects -- 6 Q. Looking at this list, I don't see them. I see 7 categories of erosion, local flooding and regional 8 flooding. Those are the three types of projects I see, 9 and I think that comports with what we've heard from MSD 10 as to how they're sorting these things. 11 A. Yeah, I'm going through the spreadsheet and 12 that does look to be correct. 13 Q. So in prioritizing these projects, do you know 14 if MSD said, okay, we're going to take a certain number of 15 erosion projects -- we're going to take all of our erosion 16 projects and we're going to prioritize them, then we're 17 going to take some percentage of and put those erosion 18 projects in the fiscal year 22, and the next group goes to 19 23 and next group 24 and then did the same thing with 20 localized flooding? Do you know if that's how they did 21 that? 22 A. Just looking at the spreadsheet, there's also 23 a category of maintenance in addition to the ones that 24 were already listed. Because this spreadsheet is not -- 25 it's protected, I can't do sorts, so I don't know, but I www.alaris.us ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 112 1 do not believe that is the case. My understanding is that 2 they were ranked based on the project benefit -cost scoring 3 and you're seeing a listing of that that falls out 4 different ways. 5 Q. Okay. So I don't see on my Exhibit 30-L 6 maintenance as a category. Can you tell me where that is? 7 A. Sure. Exhibit MSD 41-F. 8 Q. Okay. Different exhibit. 9 A. It's project 11101, Lewis and Clark Boulevard, 13 looks like there was a cave-in, so they're doing some 11 maintenance construction. 12 Q. Okay. I logged onto the site and that's an 13 Excel file that's available on request, so I don't have 14 that. 15 A. It is also provided in PDF format. 16 Q. Just not in our documents that I have 17 available. I'm sorry. 18 R. Okay. 19 Q. So when I look at Exhibit 30-L and I look at 20 fiscal year 22, this Dunleer Avenue project which is a 21 22.4 is included in that year, but when I go to fiscal 22 year 23, I have Oleatha Avenue project which is a 15.4 23 priority rating. Do you know why the Oleatha Avenue 24 project with a high priority rating of 15.4, which I think 25 is the second highest priority rating in this list, is in www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 113 1 fiscal year 23 as opposed to fiscal year 22 if we're using 2 this prioritization system? 3 A. I am looking for that project. 4 6 MS. STUMP: May I interrupt for just a moment? CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Ms. Stump, please do. MS. STUMP: Mr. Goss, obviously from your 7 questioning, I think that there are a lot of questions on 8 this, how the district is doing this list, so I think we 9 will submit an additional discovery request to the 10 district to try to get some of these questions answered. 11 I know that doesn't help you today, but that way we will 12 have in the record the district's response to these 13 questions. 14 COMMISSIONER GOSS: That would be very helpful 15 and I would appreciate that. 16 Q. (By Commissioner Goss) Did you find the 17 project that I was talking about? It's on the second page 18 about 10 items down. 19 A. Yes. There's not enough information here to 20 be able to determine that. 21 Q. As to why that even though it had -- 22 because I thought this list was, and this selection of 23 projects was based upon the prioritization ranking and the 24 prioritization system, and so I don't understand how, if 25 that's true, this 15.4 could have been bumped to fiscal ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3378 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5I1712018 Page 114 1 year 23 as opposed to fiscal year 22. 2 A. Yeah, and _ don't :now specifically on that 3 project. I will say some of these are phased out, so 4 there may be a related project earlier in the program that 5 that project can't be completed until something, so the 6 district will have to answer that specific question, 7 Q. Okay. And so when we were talking about 8 differences in priority rankings and the meaningfulness of 9 these numbers, some of these numbers -- there's a .81 10 project and a .82 project. Is that a meaningful 11 difference to prioritize those projects? 12 A. It is not, but those are both happening in 13 that same fiscal year. 14 Q. Yeah, I see that. I'm just trying to figure 15 out what -- I think one of the questions I had asked you 16 earlier, I'm not sure we answered it, was when does the 17 spread in these numbers become meaningful, and can you 18 tell from looking at this list? Because it looks to me 19 like they get down to some fractional amounts pretty 2U quickly, and if this is what we're using as our priority 21 system, I don't understand how we're slicing that pie up. 22 A. And the district would have to explain that 23 more directly as far as what buckets they put these 24 projects into. We also don't have the full -- you know, 25 there's several more binders full of projects that are not www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 115 1 listed here, so we're looking at a sampling of projects 2 that are higher in the priority ranking system that have 3 been programmed in the first few years. 4 Q. I think one of my concerns have been because the differentiation between a .81 and a .82 isn't 6 meaningful was that it's somewhat arbitrary that a project will get bumped later to a later year, maybe a .82, and 8 the .81 project doesn't get taken up because it was, you 9 know, a hundredth of a point less. But it doesn't appear 10 that that is the case. It appears these projects are 11 organized in different sort of basis, because I'm not 12 seeing under the priority system that kind of rigid 13 numbering which I would have anticipated had that been the 14 way we were following this. 15 A. It's hard to tell based on this listing 16 because it's not ranked by the project number 17 specifically. I don't have the capacity to do that with 18 the Excel spreadsheet, so I think we would have to ask the 19 district for more information to be able to do that. 20 Q. Okay. And I can tell, just based on the fact 21 that I can see the same numbers in different fiscal years, 22 so I know that that's not occurring. 23 A. I'm looking at -- 24 Q• I can see a go ahead. I'm sorry. 25 A. I'm looking at some of the other projects that www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5I1712018 Page 116 are on the larger list which -- 2 Q. I don't have. 3 A. -- you don't have. Some of them are in the 4 .08 range, so, you know -- the district may have moved 5 different projects based on various reasons that may not 6 be clear from what we're seeing here today. As I said► 7 some of them are phased, some of them have related 8 projects. l know there has been a greater coordination 9 between municipalities and other entities such as MODCT to 10 try and find out it there's efficiencies in doing projects 11 at the same time, you know, one municipality is redoing a 12 road and you're putting in a stormwater project, they may 13 have programmed that to be aligned with another project in 14 the region. I'm just not sure, so the district would have 15 tc answer those questions. 16 Q. Okay. And just so I understand what the 17 priority ranking number is, when I look at Exhibit 30-K 18 and I come up with total points for problems and solutions 19 and I divide that by cost, that's what got me that 20 priority rating; is that right, that fractional number? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. So if that's the case, the cost that 23 we're dividing here are the costs that MSD would incur in 24 this project, right? 25 A. That's correct. ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 117 1 Q. Okay. So it's an MSD cost. So if I reduce 2 the MSD cost, then the priority goes up, right, because 3 it's -- 4 A. If you're able to reduce a cost on a given 5 project, yes. 6 Q. Okay. That's what I thought. So if I have a 7 third party source that's paying for the costs, MSD's cost 8 goes down, so the priority will go up, because that's what 9 this cost is all about. It's really MSD's cost. We don't 10 have an objective system here that separates or accounts 11 for third party costs that -- 12 A. I would not say that. The cost is not source 13 driven. 14 Q. I get it. 15 A. So to reduce the cost, you would have to, say, 16 reduce the amount of pipe or 17 Q. Let me ask you this. Do any of those costs 18 consider anyone else's costs, like the costs to MODOT that 19 might be associated with traffic control? 20 A. Well -- 21 Q. I don't think they do. I think it's MSD's 22 cost. MSD is trying to figure out where should we put our 23 time and talent, right? They don't care how much MODOT is 24 going to spend on traffic control. They might, you know, 25 sympathetically care, but they don't care in terms of www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/1712018 Page 118 1 prioritizing the projects. 2 A. Typically if there is another entity involved, 3 MSD does bear those costs on their projects. 4 Q. What if they didn't. Do they always? 5 A. In the projects that I've been involved in, 6 MSD bears the cost of other entities when they oerform 7 their projects. 8 Q. Okay. So it's an MSD cost. So if that third 9 party said -- if MODOT says I'll pay the program costs, 10 the traffic control costs, I'm paying them, then MSD's li cost would go down, right? 12 A. If a portion of the project cost went down, 13 yes, the project cost would be reduced. 14 Q. Okay. So if a municipality was paying those 1' project costs, then MSD's cost would go down, correct? 16 A. The project cost would not, though. 17 Q. Well, I'm confused now because we just said, 18 like the MODOT example, MODOT is paying -- MSD is paying 19 MODOT's costs. 20 A. That's a project cost. 21 Q. Okay. That's a project cost. And if there 22 are project costs associated that a municipality was 23 paying, that would cause the project cost to go down? 24 A. If there was a project cost that the 23 municipality was paying, yes. I'm not sure what that www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 119 1 circumstance would be. 2 Q. Well, wouldn't it -- couldn't it be that the 3 municipality would say we're going to pay for the cost of 4 the pipe, which is a project cost? 5 A. That's a source of funding, not a project 6 cost, though. Q. And so notwithstanding that MSD will pay less money, you don't think that's going to change the 9 prioritization of it? 10 A. It wouldn't based on the way this is done. 11 Q. Well, let me ask you, do you think that they 12 ought to change their prioritization rating system so that 13 it did? Because don't they really want to know what their 14 cost -- 15 A. I personally don't think that would be fair or 16 equitable, no. 17 Q. Okay. Explain why that wouldn't be fair and 18 equitable. I think you mentioned earlier in Mr. Palans' 19 answer, and I'm not sure I quite understood, so help me 20 out. 21 A. Because equity helps to take the equation of 22 privilege and money out of our civil infrastructure and so 23 you're providing services in an equitable way across the 24 community. So you don't want to have people that have 25 more money buying the priority of their projects. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 120 1 Q. So you don't want people who consider 2 stormwater to be of greater urgency and need and are 3 willing to pay for it because they believe their problem 4 is so severe to be able to help their community out by 5 paying part of those stormwater costs; is that what you're 6 telling me? 7 A. What I'm saying is that if their project is 8 severe, it's being ranked higher in the priority system so 9 it will be done at an ea-1 - or point in the schedule. I 10 think the district has said that they would consider third 11 party money within a fiscal year in order to accent those 12 funds and get that project done quicker within that fiscal 13 year so as not to fund other prioritizaticns of other 14 projects. 15 Q. A long time ago in this testimony we talked 16 about how this system is subjective. Do you remember 17 that? 18 A. The -- 19 Q. MSD's system, when they made these kinds of 2C cnanges. 21 A. I wouldn't say the ranking system is 22 subjective. I would say that when the system was 23 initially developed, there was some engineering 24 subjectivity that was performed in determining the 25 appropriateness of the model and how the algorithm fell } www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 1 out, but the system itself is not subjective. 2 Q• Page 121 So there's no assumptions in this system of 3 assigning these different values; that's not occurring, 4 they're just objective values? 5 6 A. You're correct in that. Q• I thought so. So that means there is 7 subjectivity in the system; you would admit that, correct? 8 A. There is subjectivity in the assignment of the 9 points, yes. 10 Q. Do you know if any source, do you know any 11 organization, independent of MSD and independent of the 12 St. Louis community such as Horner & Shifrin, which is 13 part of the St. Louis community, has evaluated this 14 utilization system and priority system? 15 A. I don't believe anyone outside of the region 16 has evaluated this particular system. 17 Q. Okay. For example, ASTM, I'm sure you're 18 familiar with them, they're a standards rating 19 organization. An organization like that, have they ever 20 looked at this? 21 A. No- 22 Q. Do you know what other districts use as their 23 prioritization systems? 24 A. This is a very typical type of system for all 25 capital improvement programs. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 122 Q. Other than variables may be different 2 depending what that district felt was a priority? 3 A. Or a different type of utility, yes. 4 Q. Or a different ranking and number system? 5 A. Of course. 6 COMMISSIONER BROCKMANN: Mr. Chairman, if I 7 may, could we consider taking a break for lunch at this 8 time? 9 COMMISSIONER GOSS: I'm almost done. If I 10 might finish my questions, I would Like to do that. _1 COMMISSIONER CROYLE: My blood sugar is 12 dropping. COMMISSIONER GOSS: Well, I don't want your 14 blood pressure to drop, but -- 1.7 COMMISSIONER CRCYLE: No, my blood sugar. 16 COMMISSIONER GOSS: Let's take a break. 17 CHAIRMAN -OENJES: We will break for lunch 18 until 1:00 P.N. 10 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken from 2C 12:20 to 1:14 P.M.) 21 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: With that, we will ask Ms. 22 Young to return and we will continue with the testimony. 23 Mr. Goss, please continue. 24 Q. (By Commissioner Goss) Thank you, Mr. 25 Chairman. Looking at your testimony in question with www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.1100.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 123 1 respect to your background and work experience, can you -- 2 COMMISSIONER MAHFOOD: Mr. Chairman, I'm 3 sorry. I can't hear down here. 4 COMMISSIONER GOSS: I don't know that this is 5 on. Is that better? 6 COMMISSIONER MAHFOOD: It's not on. Thank 7 you. 8 MR. HOELSCHER: Mr. Goss, if you want, you can 9 take that out of the holder if that's helpful. 10 Q. (By Commissioner Goss) Appreciate the offer. 11 Looking at your work experience and background in Question 12 4, could you go through that experience and tell me what 13 specifically involved stormwater projects or stormwater 14 review? 15 A. Sure. 16 Q. Because it looked like there was some that was 17 wastewater and some were stormwater and I don't want to 18 get way down in the weeds, but stay pretty high -- 19 A. Sure. So beginning in my career I did start 20 on environmental assessment, so that would not have 21 included stormwater experience. Beginning in 2001 I 22 started working on what was then called the SKME project. 23 That was originally the program planning for the 24 wastewater, but because we were working areas that 25 required separation and also some additional stormwater, www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 i TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/1712018 Page 124 we were looking at stormwater issues within that whole 2 program. 3 4 watershed, the largest watershed within I was responsible for the River Des Peres e district, so 5 any of those projects that fell underneath RDP would have 6 been under my responsibility for modeling, determining the 7 projects that came out of that and setting up very similar 8 program to what is in the CRP that you see here today. 9 That's -- earlier when I referenced a project that was 10 planned in 2001 and wasn't actually constructed until this 11 past year, that stormwater project came out of that 12 program. 13 From there, I have worked on a number of 14 stormwater design projects over the years including hard 15 piping and green land -- green infrastructure 3MPs for the 16 district. I've worked for other communities. =7 Specifically on stormwater we've done some work with 18 Jefferson City, Missouri, some small projects. I should 19 say large projects with smaller communities such as City 20 of Moberly, Macon, Kirksville and Old Monroe up in Lincoln 21 County. 22 Recently we did some hardscaping projects for 23 MSD underneath the Gravois A contract which included 24 several projects that had been planned for a couple of 25 decades, and we're currently doing work with developers in www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 22 23 24 25 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 125 1 the area, hotels, health care association -- or health 2 care buildings. We've done some insurance companies and 3 some other type work. 4 Q. Thank you. And I saw in your background that you worked at CDM and you were working on some municipal 6 solutions focusing on wastewater, and there was an initial 7 implementation of stormwater rate structure that you said 8 you became tangentially involved in toward the end of the 9 project. What was that kind of tangential involvement? 10 A. Yeah. So I was responsible for the CDM office in St. Louis during that time period. I came in in the 12 middle of the rate commission that was convened at that 13 time. Steve Sedgwick was the expert from CDM that 14 provided some services, you won't may remember him from 15 that time period. 16 They did look at a similar impervious area. 17 Because Steve reported through my office, I was working 18 with him and had a general understanding of what was 19 happening at that time, but was not directly involved with 20 the project. 21 Q. So it wasn't a direct report to you. So in all that history, what involvement have you had with stormwater credit programs and setting those programs up or evaluating the effectiveness of them? A. I have had no experience in setting those up. ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5I1712018 Page 126 1 My experience on the credit programs has been working with 2 developers to evaluate whether they wanted to participate 3 in those or not, and generally my experience is that they 4 have not. 5 Q. And those developers would be commercial 6 developers? A. That's correct. 8 Q. Have you worked with any residential 9 developers? 10 A. l have not. Q. In thinking about a credit program, one of the 12 problems that I think you and I had talked about before 13 the break were stormwater retention basins that were 14 developed in the '70s and '80s per MSD specifications, but =5 now we realize with more time, those aren't functioning 16 the way we had hoped they would, there are deficiencies 1-7 with them. Do you remember that? 18 A. 1 believe that was during the last meeting, 19 but yes, : do remember it. 2� Q. So we talked about it. Time flies. 2y A. Yes. 22 Q. So in those subdivisions the stormwater issues 23 which the residents are dealing with principally are their 24 retention basins. That's how they're handling their 25 stormwater in those subdivisions, and does that make ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 127 1 sense? 2 A. That's a part of the solution for that, yes. 3 Q. Right. So in thinking about a credit program, 4 I know I had asked MSD could a homeowners association 5 qualify for a credit program, and the answer was no, 6 because they don't have taxable property. If they had a 7 clubhouse or something, they would, and very little of 8 those, so all I'm focusing on is the stormwater retention 9 basin. 10 Would it be possible or do you think it would 11 be effective if the homeowners whose stormwater retention 12 is being addressed in the stormwater retention basin would 13 be able to apply for the credit for that stormwater basin 14 and essentially pool their credit, so if they had 20 15 homeowners and they've got 135 bucks that's coming to each 16 of them, they can pool that credit and apply that to the 17 retention basin. Do you think that would be an effective 18 program? Do you have any opinion on that? 19 A. I don't have any experience or understanding 20 of those issues, so I'll have to defer to others. 21 COMMISSIONER GOSS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 22 That's all. 23 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Goss. Mr. 24 Bresnan, do you have a comment? 25 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER BRESNAN: ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 128 Q. The question I have, Nicole, for you is in 2 your experience in looking at the -- I won't say 3 prioritisation of the dollar amounts, I would say it would 4 be safe to assume that when you look at these amounts, you would do it by perhaps a region, not, you know, a $5 6 million critical area and a $2 million critical area. It 7 would be based over like say a pocket of, say, South St. 8 Louis where it would be more cost effective to treat a number of issues, erosion, flooding and that. It's not 10 just based on a dollar amount figure, it's based on the 11 need and, again, an area. You know, I think it could be 12 -- you know, we're looking at this and it could be 13 misleading to the public inasmuch as somebody sees that► 14 you know, this isn't slated for 2024, when, in fact, it 15 might be sooner based on the necessity to the region, not 16 just a dollar amount on an area. 17 Then the other comment I have is on that 18 dollar assessment, sometimes municipalities overlay, so if 19 there was an outside entity that wanted to participate, 20 could pay more, could it be -- in your experience, could 21 it bog it down by doing that where, you know, somebody 22 might be able to pay 10 percent more, but the area crosses 23 where the other side of the street wouldn't benefit, so 24 from an outside standpoint it looks more fair how it's set 23 up is to get outside entities, although I'm not opposed to www.alaris.us ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 129 1 it, I'm just trying to see for the basic policy, the basic 2 homebuyer, what's the most fair across the board. That's 3 my question. 4 A. There generally are conditions to 5 public -private partnerships and those sometimes can bog 6 down projects. I think in the way that they've been 7 discussed, it wouldn't be an issue, but as I've testified, 8 I think it is fair and equitable the way that it's set up 9 currently. 10 COMMISSIONER BRESNAN: Thank you. No further 11 questions. 12 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Bresnan. 13 Anyone else? 14 COMMISSIONER GOSS: I did have one follow-up. 15 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Yes, Mr. Goss. 16 QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONER GOSS: 17 Q. I thought in your testimony what you had told 18 me earlier on this prioritization system was that the lc) number of people benefitted by the project was included in 20 the scoring. Isn't that right? 21 A. I don't believe that I testified to that. 22 Q. Well, it's in your answer. It's in Question 23 11, the answer to it. You say H&S and CDM recommended 24 inclusion of project cost and number of people benefitted 25 in the scoring, as well as increasing the scale to allow www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/1712018 Page 130 for greater differentiation. And that, in fact, is what I 2 understand the prioritization scale does, does it not? 3 A. Yes. 4 6 7 8 9 10 Ii A. 12 7q 14 any of the 15 16 17 18 Q. 19 today and a 20 that MSD's, 21 appropriate 22 accurate? 23 A. 24 5 2 L .� Q. Q. So, in fact, when the prioritization numbers are created, they are taking into effect the number of people that A. Q. are benefitted? They are. So this regional question that was just raised, that should be accounted for in the scoring, should it not? It should be. COMMISSIONER GOSS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Goss. Do other Rate Commissioners have questions for Ms. Young? Ms. Myers, do you have questions for Ms. Young. MS.MYERS: I have a couple. QUESTIONS ?Y MS. MYERS: Okay. You have provided us a lot of testimony lot of written testimony about your conclusion the way the projects are outlined, are and the cost estimates are sufficient; is that Yes. So is that consistent with industry standards in your conclusion? ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 1 A. I believe so, yes. Page 131 2 Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that it is not an 3 industry standard with a program such as this to have 4 detailed engineering prior to having the funding for such 5 programs? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Okay. Now I'm going to hand you Exhibit RC-44 8 which is your rebuttal testimony, and I'm going to ask you 9 to look at Question 12. Question 12 is -- it's the last 10 -- well, second to last question on Page 6. Would you 11 read the portion that I have highlighted there, please. 12 A. "However, it is unlikely that BMPs will have a 13 significant effect in reducing the civil infrastructure 14 investments necessary in the program. While it is 15 beneficial to install BMPs, MSD needs to collect the funds 16 in order to build the stormwater infrastructure or 17 undertake buyouts included in the CIRP. 18 Increasing incentives or credits may increase 19 BMPs without actually achieving a reduction in effective 20 impervious area where needed. Additionally, BMPs are 21 expensive to build and maintain. In my experience, the 22 amount of incentive or credit that would need to be 23 provided to gain interest from residential or commercial 24 property owners would need to equal the cost to the 25 property owner to inspire participation is not regulated www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 132 1 to gain a green certification, or altruistic." 1 don't 2 believe I wrote that correctly. 3 : can go back. In my exoerience, the amount 4 of incentive or credit that would need to be provided to 5 gain interest from residential or commercial property 6 owners would need to equal the cost to the property owner 7 to inspire participation that is not regulated tc gain 8 green certification or altruistic things to happen, in 9 that last phrasing --- 1fl Q. Well, can you explain in a little bit of 11 detail how you came to that conclusion? 12 A. It's just been my experience in the 17 years 13 that I've been working on stormwater projects, I think as 14 we've discussed today, the residential program that MSD 15 has put out through Project Clear that you all have done a 16 significant amount of effort and outreach and : think done 17 a good job of communicating tc the community. 18 I'm not as familiar with the residential side 19 as I am the commercial side, but I think that program 20 from the communication outreach perspective, has been 21 successful, although it may not have inspired as much 22 participation as any of us would have liked. Cn the 23 commercial side it just comes down to dollars and cents. 24 Developers aren't really interested in having altruistic 25 motives as a part of the project, it really is a business www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 133 1 decision for them. 2 Some developers gain green certifications or 3 LEED certifications which benefit them in the end. 4 However, from my experience, is that developers, even if 9 there is some incentive, are not going to pay for green 6 infrastructure unless that cost is fully taken care of. Q. So with the district proposed incentive and credit program, do you feel that it -- that would provide 9 a nominal benefit to homeowners without compromising the 10 CIRP the way we have it proposed now? 11 A. I believe that's what I testified to, yes. 12 MS. MYERS: Okay. Thank you. I don't have 13 anything else. 14 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Ms. Myers. Mr. 15 Neuschafer. 16 QUESTIONS BY MR. NEUSCHAFER: 17 Q. Good afternoon. I would like to first turn to 18 Page 5 of your testimony, which is Question 10. You 19 conclude that the district's cost estimates were completed 20 in accordance with common practice for this phase of the 21 program; is that correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. What do you mean by this phase of the program? 24 A. Well, assuming the program moves forward, this 25 is a conceptual level cost estimate and it's appropriate www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 134 1 for the 2 3 talking about on a project -by -project basis or for a 4 program 6 7 9, you talk about 8 this proposal and concept level. Q• When you say with the common practice, are you that involves 500 or more projects? A. Both. ° different studies 10 date, if I'm reading this correctly, anywhere from 1981 to 2010; is that correct? Q. To back up here just a page, Page 4, Question the support that MSD has generated for you go through a long paragraph here of or plans that were prepared and they 12 A. 13 Q. 14 the 483 or 15 A. 16 Q. 17 Yes. And this is the engineering work that supports so projects that are currently being proposed? Yes. Is any of this outdated? A. T think it's been updated over time. The 18 problems and solutions 1 think are still relevant. The 10 costing has needed to be updated. T. believe that is what 20 has happened in the course of this rate setting. 21 22 and solutions are still accurate, given it appears that 23 the newest overall review is at least eight years old? 24 25 has used their complaint system to justify that. Q• And on what do you conclude that the problems A. These problems have not been addressed and MSC ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 135 1 Q. On what do you base your conclusion that these 2 problems have not been addressed? 3 A. There hasn't been funding available, so the 4 district has taken no action on the problems that have 5 been identified. 6 Q. Could a third party have taken action with 7 respect to any of these problems? 8 A. It's unlikely in St. Louis. 9 Q. You don't know that for sure? 10 A. I do not know that for sure. 11 Q. Could a problem have gone away because of new 12 construction, for example? 13 A. Of course, and I believe that the district has 14 said that this is a flexible program and if problems had 15 gone away, that they would evaluate those and be able to 16 move other priorities forward. 17 Q. Earlier this morning Commissioner Schoedel 18 asked you a question about the costs of the program and I 19 believe your conclusion was if we don't do this now, the 20 cost will increase? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Are you talking about the costs for these 23 individual projects would increase if we don't -- if we 24 don't authorize this rate now? 25 A. Yes. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 Page 136 Q, That's just these particular stormwater 2 projects? 3 A. All civil -- all civil engineering projects, 4 the cost increases over time if you don't Perform them in 5 the date that they're assigned to. 6 Q. Are these -- the facts that these projects 7 haven't been addressed, are those -- is that impacting 8 wastewater rates or the ability of MSD to provide 9 wastewater services? 10 A. I don't believe so, no. 11 Q. I know you had some long discussions with 12 Commissioners Goss and Palans about the what we'll call 13 the cost -benefit analysis. The 483 projects identified by 14 MSD that have been prioritized, are those all of the 15 projects about which MSD has received calls or identified? 16 A. That's what the district has stated. 17 Q. So the district has not said we've received or 18 identified 600 projects, but we think these 120 or so just 19 don't need to be done? 20 A. That's my understanding of what the district 21 has stated. 22 Q. So 483 projects are everything that's been 23 identified even if it's extremely low priority? 24 A. Well, I guess I should restate. I believe 25 that the studies in the 53 binders look at all of the i www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 1 projects. I'm sure that the district has reviewed 2 projects that have not been found to be valid. 3 4 case? 5 A. I do not know that to be the case. Q• Page 137 Is that your -- do you know that to be the 6 Q. Assuming this rate is recommended and voters 7 approve the rate, is it your understanding that MSD will 8 put projects out to bid for local contractors and 9 engineering or design firms? 10 A. That is my understanding. 11 Q. Would Lion CSG bid on any of those projects? 12 A. No. We would not bid on construction. It is 13 unlikely that we would bid on stormwater. We have made 14 that a policy of our firm at this time. 15 Q. Okay. Is Lion CSG currently doing any 16 projects for MSD? 17 A. We are, and after we complete those projects, 18 it has been communicated to the district that we will no 19 longer be working on stormwater design projects for the 20 district. 21 Q. Will you continue working on wastewater design 22 projects? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. How long has Lion CSG been doing work for MSD 25 on wastewater projects? www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 Page 138 A. We've been in business seven years. We've 2 been working for the district for six. 3 Q. Do you have any idea of the total amount of 4 fees that have been generated over those six years? A. I do not. 6 Q. Were you or Lion involved in any of the 7 engineering support or cost estimates for any of the 483 8 or so projects that have been identified to date? 9 A. I don't believe so. My understanding is that IC the projects that we were involved with were completed 11 under the OMCI, but I can't be sure of chat. 12 Q. And refresh our recollection as to the OMCI. A. That's the existing stormwater funding that is 14 provided. 15 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Okay. Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN TCENJES: Thank you, Mr. Neuschafer_ 17 Ms. Stump, do you have questions for the witness? 18 MS. STUMP: I think I would like to ask her 19 one ouestion. I'll change seats. 20 QUESTIONS BY MS. STUMP: 21 Q. Nicole, Mr. Neuschafer just asked you some 22 questions about Lion's work with the district. Does the 23 fact that Lion did work for the district as in wastewater, 24 does that influence any of your decisions? 25 A. Absolutely not. ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 1 Or your opinions that you've made in your 2 report? 3 A. No. 4 MS. STUMP: Okay. Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Ms. Stump. Rate 6 Commissioners? Mr. Palans. 7 QUESTIONS BY MR. PALANS: 8 Q. Very short question. Just going back to 9 Question 12 of your testimony, your first sentence, "The 10 district's incentive and credit programs provide some 11 nominal benefit to property owners to provide BMPs without 12 compromising the CIRP." My question to you is why even 13 provide a nominal benefit to property owners? What good 14 does that do? Page 139 Q. 15 A. I think when you look at an overall stormwater 16 basin, you are gaining some reductions in downstream 17 stormwater by providing upstream BMP. It's very difficult 18 to insure those are being placed in the right place at the 19 right size to get the reductions that we need to solve 20 these particular projects, but I think it is overall a 21 benefit to any stormwater program to have BMPs. 22 Q. So it's certainly not a material benefit, 23 correct? 24 A. It depends, but to these particular projects, 25 I do not believe so. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 140 Q. And it's, in your words, a nominal benefit, 2 correct? 3 A. Yes, 4 Q. So what value is there in providing a nominal benefit? Wouldn't it be better to provide a material 6 benefit to induce people? 7 A. As far -- are you talking about as far as the 8 incentive Program? 9 Q. Yes. onlyway to provide a 10 A. think the full 11 material benefit would be to have the credit equal the 12 cost of the BMP, and I think that takes away from the 13 overall program. 14 Q. Ms. Young, the -- I think we're all here 15 because we're trying to solve the problem. It's a big 16 problem, flooding and erosion within this district, and it's a problem that's only going to get larger over time- 18 That's been the testimony consistent throughout; would you 19 agree with that? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And it's based upon today a conceptual 22 assessment of the scope and size of the problem, correct? 23 A. ves. 24 Q. And it's also based, in fact, upon projects 25 that have been ranked in various categories according to www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 1 erosion and flooding, correct? 2 3 A. Yes. Q• And an erosion project that is identified Page 141 4 today isn't going to be solved unless it's fixed, correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. And it's only going to get worse unless it's 7 fixed, correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. So if there's a rain storm of significant 10 proportion next week, next month, next year, five years from now, it's only going to make these projects even 12 worse, correct? 13 A. That's likely, yes. 14 Q. And if so, we will likely have more complaints 15 that will be addressed to the district to solve problems, 16 correct? 17 A. The erosion problems that are happening don't 18 all come from the same complaints. 19 Q. And we have a system, by your own 20 characterization and review, that is fair, the ranking 21 system, the prioritization system; is that right? 22 A. I believe it's - 23 Q. It's defensible, it's objective? You're 24 nodding your head yes. 25 A. Yes. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 142 1 Q. You need to answer. Yes. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And you're still of an opinion that if third 4 party funds are contributed to fix the problem such that 5 the district's costs are reduced but the project is 6 solved, remediated, that's a good thing, is it not? A. Yes, 't is. 8 COMMISSIONER PALANS: Thank you. I have no 9 further questions. 10 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you, Mr, Palans. Any 11 ether questions from any of the Commissioners at this time 12 for Ms. Young? 13 QUESTIONS BY CHAIRMAN TOENJES: 14 Q. I have one question, a couple questions. The 15 binders that you reviewed, 56 binders, are those available 16 for review by any -- are those public record? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So MIEC or any of the Rate Commissioners could 19 come and review those? 20 A. The district has offered that in their 21 testimony, yes. 22 MS. MYMRS: They were not listed as exhibits, 23 'n our testimony, Rich's testimony, I believe -- in 24 Rich's testimony the offer was made for anybody to come 25 review them. www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 143 1 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: So those are available for 2 public review? 3 MS. MYERS: Yes. 4 Q. (By Chairman Toenjes) Thank you. Have all of 5 the -- all these projects have -- I know you said you went 6 through the tap 100. Have all the projects been put in 7 this ranking system? 8 A. I want to separate the 100 projects I went 9 through. That was just to look at the categories that 10 they fell into on the spreadsheet, so I just pulled up the 11 spreadsheet and looked at the top 100 projects that were 12 listed on the spreadsheet. 13 14 Q• Right. A. Separate from looking at the binders that were 15 made available. But yes, all of the projects in those 16 binders had gone through the ranking system. 17 Q. Thank you. And I guess finally, and this is 18 not necessarily a question for you, but more of a request 19 of Ms. Stump and the district, that I think some 20 clarification, certainly some clarification of all the 21 elements of the ranking system and the rating system, the 22 fact that we had as many questions as we did about that, 23 would be very, very helpful, I think informative. 24 And I think secondly, this whole discussion 25 about the impact that private funds or donations or ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 144 i in -kind services would have on that ranking system or 2 could have on that ranking system should be clarified, you 3 know, the whole discussions about, you know, the MODOT 4 versus the private contribution. I guess you could look 5 at that from both sides of the coin; that in fact what 6 MODOT is doing is a contribution, but it's not necessarily 7 changing the cost of the -- overall cost of the project, 8 you're just moving that cost to some other entity. So I think some clarification of that particular issue by the district would really be important to have that, whether 11 it's in -kind or a physical cost or cost sharing by another 12 agency, whatever impact, if any, that has on the rating 13 and ranking of projects really would be helpful. 14 COMMISSIONER GOSS: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, from the testimony, and I do think we should get 16 clarification on this, was that if MODOT was providing 17 flagging services or traffic control, that they were 18 charging the district for and so it was part of the 19 district's cost. That's the testimony that she gave. I 2C don't know if that's correct or not, but -- so I do agree 21 that we need to clarify it. 22 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: I just want it clarified. 23 That whole issue seems a little gray at this point. 24 MR. HOELSCHER: Mr. Chairman, we will provide 25 an answer to that either as part of discovery request or www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 24 25 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 145 1 surrebuttal, depending on which is appropriate, and if 2 we're required to put -- just so while I'm here, we're 3 required to put traffic control up on state highways as 4 part of our project and MSD pays the cost and our MSD 5 contractor puts the traffic control up, and if MODOT has 6 to do anything, they bill us for the cost of that, part of 7 the project cost. That would be the fact in any 8 municipality or any government entity. 9 MS. STUMP: Mr. Chairman? 10 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Yes, Ms. Stump. MS. STUMP: So I am going to make a discovery 12 request on Monday to the district and we will address 13 these issues. If there's anything else that the 14 commissioners feel is still outstanding, we will ask for 15 that and the district has committed to getting the 16 response in prior to the next technical conference so you 17 will be able to ask the questions about it also. 18 CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you very much. I 19 appreciate that. I think the whole issue of this 20 prioritization, and being somewhat a construction guy 21 myself, I understand this point system and how having 22 something upstream or downstream or above or below or 23 sequencing may have the impact of having lower priority projects done in advance to get to higher priority projects. I don't know that for fact, but I would just ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 Page 146 1 like to have a super amount of clarification on that 2 particular issue. 3 Thank you, Ms. Youra. Are there any other 4 matters before the are Commission before we adjourn today? All right. I think, according to cur revised 6 schedule, the Rate Commission is now adjourned until June 7 7th at 9:00 A.M. 8 MS. STUMP: Correct, 9 10 " :49 P.M. 12 13 14 16 ,7 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 2� www.alaris.us CHAIRMAN TOENJES: Thank you. Adjourning at i ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER Page 147 2 3 I, BETH 0. ZINK, a Registered Professional 4 Reporter, Missouri Certified Court Reporter, Illinois 5 Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and 6 for the State of Illinois, do hereby certify that the 7 foregoing proceeding was taken by me to the best of my 8 ability and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my 9 direction; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor 10 employed by any of the parties to the action in which this 11 proceeding was held, and further, that I am not a relative 12 or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the 13 parties thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested 14 in the outcome of the action. 15 16 17 18 Beth O. Zink, RPR, CCR, CSR 19 MOCCR#799; ILCSR#084-004477 20 21 22 My commission expires August 3rd, 2018. 24 25 23 i www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 A A-161:24 A-2 62:14 66:10 A-3 63:4 A.M 6:2 61:14 146:7 ability 7:25 8:5 22:10 40:12 62:3,8 68:14 91:18 92:18 136:8 147:8 able 22:23 24:4 36:24 53:4,5 65:22 68:23 81:6 96:17 99:5 113:20 115:19 117:4 120:4 127:13 128:22135:15 145:17 Absolutely 138:25 abstract 50:4 abundance 84:10 accept 120:11 accepted 63:11 access 12:25 accompanied 7:22 accomplish 45:23 accomplishing 31:14 account 17:18 accounted 130:9 accounts 117:10 accurate 44:11 96:25 98:24 106:21110:10 130:22 134:22 achieve 24:4 94:14 achieves 18:25 achieving 131:19 acquiring 98:16 acquisition 17:12 act 52:4 53:6 action 135:4,6 147:10,14 activities 33:21 actual 29:23 37:24 42:23 53:14 69:17 82:5 add 14:18 19:24 21:15 47:22 added 60:22 82:15 addition 111:23 additional 8:20 11:17,18 19:24 21:11 34:2 40:17 43:11 46:5,10 52:3 80:3,20 82:4 90:6,22 91:14 92:3,5 95:8 95:20 113:9 123:25 Additionally 131:20 additions 83:20 address 23:9 42:6 52:25 53:4,7 62:6 76:9 77:19 90:20 145:12 addressed 53:2 81:11,13 81:18105:12 127:12 134:24 135:2 136:7 141:15 addresses 59:10 91:1 addressing 56:9 62:20 63:1 69:11 144:20 146:1 adequate 7:25 agreement amounts 7:18 15:1 21:2 22:4 19:14 21:23 74:3 23:8 24:15,17 ahead 96:18 114:19 128:3,4 24:20 31:15,17 115:24 amplify 47:20 31:24 45:20 ALARIS 1:19 analysis 16:13 55:24 76:13 algorithm 16:13 22:23 97:25 98:1 99:22 100:15 45:1,16 57:2,3 adequately 120:25 57:12 66:13 76:12 77:21 aligned 116:13 72:25 73:1 90:20 91:1 alleviate 92:18 74:3,22 84:17 adjourn 146:4 allocate 11:11 85:16 89:23 adjourned 99:12 89:24 101:17 146:6 allocated 59:18 107:4 136:13 Adjourning allocates 86:24 andlor 32:13 146:9 allotted 11:15 62:4 adjusted 100:3 allow 24:7 anecdote 105:4 100:4,11101:8 26:21 30:8 annual 61:5 101:22 102:3 10 3:2, 3 annualized adjustment 129:25 101:19 100:15 allowed 13:19 annually 99:2 admit 121:7 54:24 102:16 answer 9:14 adopted 8:11 allows 19:19 10:4,1411:7 59:2 20:2 34:19 36:17 39:5,23 advance 40:21 85:20 47:17 71:22 145:24 alphabetized 83:5 91:11 advising 85:5 110:21 94:16 97:9,23 advocating altruistic 1321,8 114:6 116:15 22:3 132:24 119:19 127:5 affect 42:21 altruistic -type 129:22,23 44:8 65:19 142:1144:25 afford 19:3 amended 6:9 answered 22:16,19,25 7:24 8:6 24:19 113:10 36:21 65:22 amendment 114:16 affordability 6:10 anticipate 43:8 22:13 40:16 amount 15:25 anticipated 52:5 53:7 17:7 27:23 7:19 115:13 75:4 30:23 42:18 anybody 33:1 afternoon 45:4 51:23 142:24 133:17 53:21 69:5 anyway 22:3 agencies 37:8 70:1 72:18 73:1 appeals 60:17 agency 144:12 80:15 85:19 appear 115:9 ago 23:6 120:15 87:23 90:10 APPEARANC... agree 26:24 117:16 128:10 4:1 5:1 60:8 89:25 128:16 131:22 appears 40:2 108:22140:19 132:3,16 138:3 43:21115:10 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117I2018 134:22 60:8,14,15,15 applicable 8:5 60:19 62:17 application 8:13 62:25,25 8:14,16 63:3,9,17,18 apply 127:13,16 64:9,11,14,15 appraisal 89:7 69:25 70:2,17 89:10 72:2,15,16,18 appreciate 75:21 82:24 75:11 113:15 83:1 94:15,15 123:10 145:19 125:1,16 128:6 approach 63:9 128:6,11,16,22 65:9 70:3 131:20 83:14 99:3 areas 52:24 approaches 53:15,23 67:11 83:21 123:24 approaching arising 43:12 47:19 aside 59:14 appropriate asked 58:3 16:9 25:17 67:25 70:6 26:13 35:10 99:18 114:15 63:17 67:23 127:4135:18 68:4 73:21 138:21 79:24 89:12 asking 16:10 99:19 100:17 17:4 23:25 100:19,19101:1 33:19 79:6 130:21133:25 92:12,12 145:1 aspect 18:10 appropriaten... 67:22 120:25 aspects 63:2 approve 137:7 67:16 75:21 approved 6:7 asphalt 72:21 24:3 26:18 assess 63:14 27:1 32:10 64:10 72:2 43:2 77:3 98:7 approximately assessed 23:5 67:4 64:23 72:7,10 April 9:10,18,20 72:12,13 9:20,2315:14 assessing 15:18 16:20 63:10 44:24 assessment arbitrary 115:6 32:4 54:9 area 14:10 89:17,17,19,20 20:20 27:18 123:20128:18 27:20 48:3,4 140:22 48:23 50:14 asset 49:21 54:16 57:10 56:14 68:10 79:18 assets 7:16 39:24 78:18 79:15 assigned 89:12 93:19 98:25 104:2 136:5 assigning 121:3 assignment 121:8 associated 7:2 19:13 20:3 30:24 31:1 54:24 65:15 69:17 117:19 118:22 association 7:7 7:7 125:1 127:4 assume 21:8 91:25 106:16 107:6 108:11 128:4 assuming 32:9 52:13 59:1 79:8 133:24 137:6 assumptions 60:11121:2 ASTM 121:17 attempt 11:11 attempting 25:19 attest 84:11 attitudes 83:10 attorney 4:4,4 4:9 147:12 August 8:23 147:22 authority 40:2 authorize 135:24 automatically 93:21 available 18:21 26:22 42:18 46:12 48:12 51:14 59:4,16 61:6 80:21 84:7 87:24 90:1 97:22 109:6 112:13,17 135:3 142:15 143:1,15 Avenue 108:12 112:20,22,23 average 53:10 aware 34:1,4,15 58:17 64:7 74:18 76:1 awareness 58:19,20 59:1 B back 23:6,19 37:11 46:23 54:20 61:16 77:19 87:9 92:10 96:24 100:23 101:8 101:12 105:15 132:3 134:6 139:8 background 87:6 123:1,11 125:4 bad 18:8 46:1 Baer 4:5 9:16 11:4 balance 18:7,9 18:16 21:15 83:1 balancing 18:10 52:4 53:6 bank 77:1 Bar 7:7 barrels 84:8 96:1 base 135:1 based 15:4 16:25 17:7 18:23 21:14,18 22:15,19 24:1 24:8,9,12 25:14 28:16 29:24 31:16 32:3 37:23 42:17 43:21 44:18 45:2,6,8 45:22 49:1,19 50:22 51:3 53:14 54:16 60:17 61:6 63:9 64:9,11 64:20,22 69:9,25 70:17 71:6 72:14 73:14 75:21 84:24 87:3,23 92:5,21,25 93:9,10 97:19 98:23 9915 100:6,20 101:23106:4 108:3,16 109:23 110:20 110:22112:2 113:23 115:15 115:20 116:5 119:10 128:7 128:10,10,15 140:21,24 basements 105:15 basic 53:19 129:1,1 basically 68:18 85:15 basin 127:9,12 127:13,17 139:16 basing 69:25 basins 126:13 126:24 basis 48:11 55:22 61:5 68:12 69:11 72:2 108:17 115:11134:3 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 bear 70:6 81:24 133:11 134:19 118:3 135:13,19 bears 118:6 136:10,24 Beckley 9:3 138:9 139:25 Beckmann 5:10 141:22 142:23 becoming believes 29:8 83:19 beneficial beds 95:24 26:20 131:15 began 10:19 beneficiaries beginning 26:12 35:9 83:12123:19 beneficiary 123:21 92:1 behalf 10:20,23 benefit 15:9 11:2112:4 38:6 26:8 34:14 38:10 41:12 36:23 39:18 behavior 49:17 39:21 54:11 51:2 62:17 66:19 belief 50:2 82:10 85:13,19 82:20 95:2 94:9 101:5 101:23 128:23 133:3 believe 15:3 133:9 139:11,13 16:7,14,17 139:21,22 17:13,21,24 140:1,5,6,11 21:13 24:15 benefit -cost 2511 26:3,10 112:2 28:12 29:22 benefits 14:9,21 30:7 31:3,15 25:16,22 29:1 32:5,8 42:14 29:2,23 31:7 44:17,19 49:16 34:7 35:8 49:24 50:3 38:2 40:23 51:10 55:11 94:17,21 59:6 70:13 96:23 71:2,2177:10 benefitted 78:11 83:3 67:17 129:19 85:22 86:1,23 129:24 130:6 87:4,18 88:3 benefitting 89:1 91:4,7 35:7 62:24 93:8 94:23 best 15:8 31:13 95:9 97:10,20 33:6,14 36:24 97:23 98:12 37:2,5 50:16 98:24 99:8 52:9,9,12 10 5: 2 108:8,14 90:24 147:7 111:4 112:1 Beth 1:19 147:3 120:3 121:15 147:18 126:18 129:21 better 28:20 131:1 132:2 28:25 32:21 32:22,25 33:1 35:7 42:3 96:25 123:5 140:5 beyond 66:15 bid 37:11 137:8 137:11,12,13 bids 37:11 big 140:15 bigger 54:20 bill145:6 billable 60:14 69:24 billing 69:24 billion 20:12,17 20:24 21:7,9 22:11 bills 18:2019:4 binders 80:20 80:20,25 81:1 86:4,7,8 97:22 114:25 136:25 142:15 142:15 143:14 143:16 bit 13:7 30:21 42:3 47:16,21 55:9 108:2 132:10 Black 11:2 blood 122:11,14 122:15 bmaloneC las... 4:7 BMP 50:16 65:15 139:17 140:12 BMPs 55:10,25 83:2,8,22 124:15 131:12 131:15,19,20 139:11,21 board 6:15 7:13 7:21 8:19,21 106:25 129:2 bog 128:21 129:5 bond 16:10 20:23 21:17 24:22 28:4 32:13 39:25 40:3,6,9,11,13 63:25 64:4 68:1,4,8,12 73:22,25 74:12 79:7,21 79:24 bondholders 23:14 24:21 28:5 74:4 bonding 79:7,8 bonds 7:16 8:3 19:19 20:2 21:4 40:16,17 68:3 73:10,11 73:12,13,14 79:25 books 19:17 68:10 borrowed 20:25 borrowing 19:6 19:7,13 20:3 24:10 Botanical 7:5 bottom 23:24 110:1 bought 77:11 Boulevard 112:9 Brad 5:10 Brandon 4:9 10:25 12:1 brandon.neu... 4:12 break 61:11 122:7,16,17 126:13 breakdown 78:8 Bresnan 2:21 5:8 127:24,25 129:10,12 Brian 4:4 9:1 11:4 bring 86:16 Broadway 4:10 Brockmann 2:7 2:15 5:7 33:24 33:25 75:14 75:15 77:14 122:6 broke 105:11 brought 29:4 Bryan 4:9 bucketing 103:4 buckets 107:18 114:23 bucks 127:15 budget 16:9 56:19 59:14,18 101:19 108:24 109:23 110:2,3 build 33:20 131:16,21 Builders 7:7 buildings 125:2 built 28:17 82:17 bumped 113:25 115:7 burden 8:7 26:8 63:6 70:10 business 18:7 18:18 25:25 29:10 132:25 138:1 businesses 18:22 19:4 buy 53:19 76:19 99:10 buying 76:22 99:10 119:25 buyout 89:8 buyouts 84:22 89:5 131:17 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 C calculate 72:15 98:9 calculated 50:22 calculation 97:25 calculations 98:13 call 84:11 85:15 103:4106:24 136:12 called 34:20 123:22 caller 107:3 calls 84:12 136:15 camera 88:11 candidate 33:3 33:15 capabilities 28:20 capable 31:25 capacity 115:17 capital 13:18 14:1417:25 18:3 19:10 20:22 21:3,16 21:20 22:9 23:5,9 24:18 24:22,23 26:21 28:18 29:17 33:10 37:19 40:4 42:6,6,11,12 43:24 44:25 45:14 48:12 52:3 54:5,19 54:22 56:20 56:21 57:6 59:7,7 60:3 60:23,23 62:2,4,12,19 63:7 64:3 67:8 68:5 69:20 70:19 73:8 75:25 76:5,6,13 78:18 79:3,15 85:6 87:19 96:17,21 97:11 121:25 card 85:23,25 86:6,12,20 care 117:23,25 117:25 125:1,2 133:6 cared 105:13 career 123:19 case 13:10 21:13 21:19 23:19 30:20 92:20 108:8 112:1 115:10 116:22 137:4,5 cases 20:19,21 30:19 53:15 80:17 cash 18:20 64:2 74:11 categories 103:4 110:2,23 111:7 140:25 143:9 categorized 109:23 110:20 category 82:7 82:10 100:10 102:23106:6 109:24111:23 112:6 cause 102:20 118:23 Cave 4:9 cave-in 112:10 CCR 1:19 147:18 CDM 125:5,10 125:13 129:23 cent 34:20,20 54:9,9 center 84:11 cents 132:23 certain 19:12 123:2 127:21 21:25 27:20 127:23 129:12 30:23 34:19 129:15 130:13 34:20 68:6 13 3:14138:16 78:13110:22 139:5 142:10 111:14 142:13 143:1,4 certainly 43:10 144:15,22,24 46:4,10 48:21 145:9,10,18 53:1 56:14 146:9 62:19 74:11 Chan 5:9 75:4 139:22 change 1:2 7:12 143:20 7:20,22 8:9 certainty 8:12,18 43:9 106:20 43:13 50:24 CERTIFICATE 50:25 83:10 147:1 87:25 92:23 certification 93:9 94:20 132:1,8 119:8,12 138:19 certifications changed 102:12 133:2,3 105:3,18,19 Certified 147:4 changes 6:12 147:5 7:14 60:8,13 certify 147:6 60:16,18 94:4 cetera 53:19 120:20 chair 5:5 6:4,5 changing 144:7 chairman 2:8 Channel 108:6 2:16 3:7 6:3 characteristics 10:23 11:1,24 64:19 12:5,9,1718:7 characterizat... 27:7,8,12 18:1 85:7,17,24 29:11 32:19 86:2 141:20 33:24 35:14 charge 33:9 36:2,4 38:4,9 53:23 69:16 38:13 41:3,7,11 75:21 41:15,19,23 charged 72:14 46:18 49:13 charges 63:10 59:21,25 61:9 charging 22:21 61:15,19 65:25 144:18 66:2,5 75:10 chart 108:4 75:14 77:15,23 Charter 6:7,11 78:1,4 80:1,5 6:15 80:9,13 81:21 cheap 109:15 85:2 95:13 check 16:17,23 96:9 97:5 21:16 113:5 122:6,17 chicken 28:1 122:21,25 circumstance 119:1 circumstances 88:2 CIRP 52:6 98:19 101:18 104:6 109:22 124:8 131:17 133:10 139:12 cistern 50:17 cities 65:3 city 7:7,9 76:25 76:25 89:16 124:18,19 civil 90:3,23 91:10 94:10 119:22 131:13 136:3,3 clarification 143:20,20 144:9,16 146:1 clarified 144:2 144:22 clarify 38:21 39:4 144:21 Clark 112:9 classes 8:8 55:3 clear 46:23 48:6 57:9,22 58:7 61:2 84:7 95:17 116:6 132:15 clearer 83:19 clearly 25:15 47:2 client 18:5 close 18:2 99:9 Club 7:9 clubhouse 127:7 Coalition 7:8 coefficient 64:22,24 72:15 coin 144:5 collect 34:16 ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 34:20 95:25 8:9,11,17,20 136:12 139:6 141:14,18 conclusion 15:5 131:15 8:23 9:1,4,7,12 142:11,18 complete 28:7 15:6 62:5,18 collected 90:9 9:15,17,18,24 145:14 36:17 43:2 63:8 64:1 collecting 23:12 10:5,9,15 11:3 committed 45:21 46:13 130:19,25 collection 15:7 11:5,11 12:10 27:24145:15 90:22137:17 132:11135:1,19 15:10 20:8 19:18 37:19 common 7:23 completed 11:14 concrete 72:20 22:24 24:8 38:11,20 41:13 71:11 99:19 24:7 25:1 28:3 72:21 27:1 32:14 41:20 75:6 133:20 134:2 28:3 30:10 concur 62:15 69:1 85:6 125:12 communicated 33:18 69:14 conditions combination 146:4,6 137:18 72:25 73:15 42:19 87:24 20:22 147:22 communicati... 114:5 133:19 87:25 88:7 combining Commission's 132:17 138:10 107:25 129:4 54:12 8:2211:6 communicati... completing conduct 33:8 come 34:2 Commissioner 132:20 32:15 46:11 conducted 16:8 38:13 57:3 2:5,5,6,6,7,7 communities completion 31:5 61:19 63:7 2:12,12,13,13 124:16,19 36:11 46:6 conducting 66:5 80:21 2:15,15,19,19 community compliance 19:25 29:10 95:1 98:10,15 2:20,20,21,21 14:18 22:16,19 19:12 20:10,13 conference 1:8 116:18 141:18 2:22 3:6 12:13 34:9,13,14 comply 8:5 6:1 9:10,13 142:19,24 27:6,11,13 36:23 90:24 19:14 10:2,8,11,13 comes 20:25 29:12 32:17,18 91:13,14101:6 complying 20:7 80:23 145:16 27:25 37:18 32:20 33:23 119:24 120:4 component confidence 77:24 82:24 33:25 35:15 121:12,13 22:14 49:25 33:19 91:12 103:19 36:1,3 41:22 132:17 59:1101:25 confident 23:7 103:20 132:23 41:24 46:16 community-n... components 23:7,8 45:9,9 comfort 37:16 46:20 49:14 6:24 83:15 45:9 37:17 59:20,23 60:1 compacted comports 111:9 confirm 13:14 comfortable 61:8 75:15 64:8,12,14 compromising conflated 78:19 36:13,15 77:14,16,25 71:17 72:8,18 133:9 139:12 79:17 103:15 80:12 81:20 companies 14:5 computed confused 118:17 coming 102:4 82:20 85:1,3 125:2 93:21 confusing 31:19 127:15 95:11,16 96:10 company's conceivable conjunction commenced 97:4,7113:14 23:12 82:13 30:19 6:1 113:16 122:6,9 compare 72:25 concept 35:11 connected comment 55:17 122:11,13,15,16 compared 36:11 45:8 107:15 55:21 95:16 122:24123:2 64:16 65:14 82:16 134:1 consciousness 99:20 127:24 123:4,6,10 compete conceptual17:3 59:2,15 128:17 127:21,25 107:24 17:10 45:3,7 consent 20:6 commercial 129:10,14,16 compiles 68:16 45:16 73:5,20 20:10 21:12,20 126:5 131:23 130:12135:17 compiling 133:25 140:21 22:12 40:18 132:5,19,23 142:8144:14 68:18 concerned consequence commercial-i... commissioners complaint 91:11 18:22 6:20 5:4 27:9 41:1,8 134:25 concerns 115:4 consider 25:17 commission 1:1 59:22 61:10 complaints conclude 15:4 30:22,25 4:8 6:4,11,17 78:2 81:21 16:25 45:3 62:2 133:19 40:11,15 51:6 6:19 7:1,13,21 95:14 130:14 90:6,9 107:3 134:21 57:1 84:21 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/1712018 91:5 117:18 19:21 18:6 17:22 19:8,10 17:12,19,19 120:1,10122:7 continue 21:15 correct 13:13,19 19:24 20:9,13 19:6,12 23:16 consideration 55:24 56:2 14:715:22,25 25:18 26:8,16 28:21 29:17 18:24 22:20 61:4 74:13 16:5,13,14,22 27:4 28:10,21 29:23 31:6 40:1,10,13 122:22,23 17:1,2,8,12,14 28:23 32:1,2 33:11 35:21 52:7 57:17 137:21 19:13 20:13,15 33:4 35:5,7,18 36:25 40:22 considered continued 3:1 21:9 24:10,13 37:9,24 43:6 42:22 43:24 29:20,22 5:1 77:8 24:14 25:9 43:14 44:20 44:11,13,16 considering continuously 26:2,23 30:14 45:7,16 47:15 45:22 48:16 18:3 27:3 30:5 76:19 38:23 42:23 52:13 53:8 50:12 53:18,18 31:4 contract 124:23 42:24 43:3,4 60:24,24 54:6,7,17,22 consistent 7:23 contractor 43:25 44:1,11 69:22 72:24 54:23 55:6 8:2 13:2219:1 145:5 44:12,12,14 73:1,4,5,11,17 57:16 63:7 35:21 86:5,10 contractors 7:2 51:15 55:11,11 73:19,19 81:3 65:15 68:17 87:15 92:14 37:21 137:8 60:10 61:1 81:12,15 85:14 69:3,5 70:18 130:24 140:18 contribute 62:12,12 85:18 87:21 81:14 85:19 consists 7:1 25:13 27:4 72:22 74:16,17 87:22 88:15 88:1,6,19,21 constitutional 71:18 77:8 74:21 75:2 89:8,12 93:19 88:24 90:22 7:23 94:22 96:4 79:10 83:9 93:21,22,24 93:4,10,12,25 constraints contributed 85:16,21,22 93:24 94:3,3 98:7,25 99:1 39:11 25:8 26:20 86:21 87:14,15 97:25 98:4,4 99:15 116:23 constructed 92:14 94:1 87:16 88:1,15 98:12,16,17,21 117:7,11,17,18 79:17 124:10 142:4 89:6 90:7,15 108:24 116:19 117:18118:3,9 construction contributing 91:23,24 93:1 116:22 117:1,2 118:10,15,19 7:4 17:19 36:6 26:7 70:25,25 93:6 94:8 117:4,7,9,9,12 118:22 120:5 42:22 83:2 contribution 99:13 101:9 117:15,22118:6 135:18,22 84:21112:11 25:24 26:1 102:1,7 103:16 118:8,11,12,13 142:5 135:12 137:12 46:2 92:1,3 106:14 108:11 118:15,16,20 Council 7:4,5 145:20 144:4,6 111:12 116:25 118:21,23,24 Councilman Consultant contributions 118:15 121:5,7 119:3,4,6,14 108:1 9:24 101011:2 34:3 91:9 126:7 131:6 128:8 129:24 counsel 4:14 consultants 92:13 93:5 133:21 134:i1 130:21131:24 9:16 10:7,16 96:14 control 75:18 139:23 140:2 132:6 133:6,19 11:4,12,14 consumers 4:13 76:3,6117:19 140:22 141:1,4 133:25 135:20 147:9,12 7:4,10 8:15 117:2411810 141:5,7,8,12,16 136:4 138:7 country 52:24 9:21,25 10:24 14417 145:3,5 144:20 146:8 140:12 144:7,7 53:23 58:13 11:22 12:2,4 convened correction 144:8,11,11,19 58:16,19 59:16 12512 21:21 145:4,6,7 county 6:8 7:3 contained coordination correctly 29:13 cost -benefit 7:8 89:16 42:22 34:23 35:2 50:19 98:22 85:15 93:1,2 124:21 context 101:1 116:8 108:5 132:2 93:18,21104:2 couple 36:12 contingencies copy 46:25 134:10 107:4109:12 38:12,20,21 37:22 61:22 correlating 109:18 136:13 39:4 54:2 continually corporate 96:22 costing 134:19 109:22 124:24 77:9 25:24 cost 14:1415:25 costly 88:17 130:16 142:14 Continuation corporation 16:1,4,7,19 costs 7:17 17:10 course 92:20 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: t800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 I TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 103:11 122:5 CSR 1:19147:18 134:20 135:13 cumulative Court 147:4 74:23 covenant 8:2 curious 32:24 covenants current 19:21 19:14 63:25 21:7 25:7 64:4 68:1 42:16 63:25 cover 7:18 69:11 74:10 coverage 22:4 currently 7:1 40:14 29:7 62:10 create 14:21 124:25 129:9 16:8 77:3 134:14 137:15 created 87:2,13 curve 102:21 87:14 130:5 customer 19:10 credibility 33:12 52:5 80:14 53:7,11 75:4 credit 22:5 customers 15:8 40:14,15 47:6 18:11,19,21,22 47:9,11,12,24 19:3,3,9 22:15 48:11 49:16,24 22:21 23:17 50:5,5,8,23 23:25 24:25 50:24 51:1,7 28:1,5 32:13 51:14,20 32:15 33:9,12 54:22 55:2,9 33:16,20 55:12,22 56:4 35:21 38:3 56:6,10 57:14 40:16,23 60:7,16 65:14 47:14 51:7,20 71:2,10 94:13 52:8 53:8,12 94:16 125:23 53:24 54:8 126:1,11127:3 55:9,24 127:5,13,14,16 57:22 65:18 131:22132:4 65:18,21 70:16 133:8 139:10 71:4 140:11 cut 16:19 106:2 credit -type cutoffs 101:12,13 65:13 101:15 credits 55:19 cynical 50:7 71:4 83:8 95:8 131:18 critical 128:6,6 D 2:1 crosses 128:22 damages 76:22 Croyle 5:5 data 98:11 95:16 122:11 109:6 12215 database 90:7 CSG 11:3 137:11 date 42:8 137:15,24 13410136:5 138:8 68:21 dated 86:15 definitely 53:3 day 52:9,12 95:6 day -in 73:8 definition 70:11 day -out 73:9 definitive 36:9 days 8:20 84:12 37:5 dealing 83:3 degree 103:25 105:15 126:23 106:19 debt 17:25 18:3 Delaware 65:6 18:13,15,19 delegates 6:17 21:3,7,11,15,23 delinquencies 22:1,4,6,8,11 7:19 22:13,14,16,19 delved 67:8 22:22,23 demand 57:5 40:10,13 64:4 57:21 68:15,24 69:2 demonstration 74:14 28:4 decades 105:3 depend 49:2 105:12 124:25 50:16 deception 29:3 depending deciding 35:5 46:25 60:6 decision 25:12 63:16 79:21 100:22 133:1 107:24 122:2 decisions 145:1 138:24 depends 28:12 decoupling 34:6 48:19 48:10 58:10 65:14 decrease 139:24 60:20,24 Des124:3 decreased describe 86:14 60:23 described 57:4 decree 20:6,10 85:5 21:12,20 22:12 describing 40:18 32:5 dedicate 91:22 description deemed 8:16 14:20 deeper 67:8 descriptions defensible 17:4 87:15 92:7 design 105:7 141:23 107:25 124:14 defer 45:12 137:9,19,21 73:7 127:20 designed 22:3 deferring 68:18 designing deficiencies 21:25 126:16 designs 33:4 defined 64:16 desire 48:2 desiring 11:9 detail 30:2,12 37:20,25 49:7 56:16 58:23 81:2 86:10 132:11 detailed 16:7 17:8 25:2 30:8,16 32:1 33:4,17 37:24 42:18 45:4 65:4 71:10 73:4 87:23 131:4 details 34:18 49:9 56:15 determine 61:5 64:18 70:12 113:20 determined 23:24 69:9 70:1 determining 120:24 124:6 developed 57:8,10 68:3 70:16 71:11 120:23126:14 developers 83:1 124:25 126:2,5,6,9 132:24133:2 133:4 developing 52:14 56:16 75:4,24 development 57:13,14 64:14 73:8 develops 93:18 differ 100:21 difference 103:23 114:11 differences 114:8 different 36:9 i ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 43:18 49:2 54:2,7 55:1,7 58:16 69:10 72:12 76:14 78:19 79:18 81:25 90:6 101:3 103:4,25 109:22 112:4,8 115:11,21116:5 121:3122:1,3,4 134:9 differentiate 64:8 differentiation 100:8 102:17 102:20 103:2 103:14,18 115:5 130:1 differently 26:25 difficult 57:3 84:2 91:11 139:17 difficulties 12:19 direct 9:1,12 12:16,21 57:7 125:21 directed 62:13 direction 53:4 83:24 147:9 directly 13:8 103:1114:23 125:19 director 58:3 dirt 64:9 71:17 72:8,18 disagree 15:12 25:23 97:17 discontinued 74:9,10 discovery 9:5,8 9:19,22 13:9 71:22 78:11,22 113:9 144:25 145:11 discussed 129:7 132:14 99:20,21,23 112:10113:8 99:7,12 discussion 100:1104:21 116:10 124:25 education 7:10 39:3 58:4 106:2 107:1,11 128:21137:15 82:12 83:14,21 80:14 87:20 108:14,16 137:24144:6 educational 98:2 143:24 109:22 110:19 dollar 65:20 55:2,4 discussions 113:8,10114:6 128:3,10,16,18 effect 26:19 77:17 136:11 114:22115:19 dollars 18:4 64:15 65:7 144:3 116:4,14 78:7132:23 88:14 92:2 dismaying 120:10122:2 Don 5:8 106:21107:13 52:20 124:4,16 133:7 donations 130:5 131:13 distant 23:2 135:4,13 143:25 effective 48:3,3 district 1:1 4:14 136:16,17,20 double 16:17 51:1,14 52:20 4:17 6:5,7,12 137:1,18,20 downstream 55:18,19,25 6:14,16,22 138:2,22,23 139:16 145:22 56:9 58:4,8 7:13,16 8:4,5 140:16 141:15 drainage 7:25 64:11 72:16 8:10,19,21,25 142:20143:19 62:4 83:23 94:15 9:5,6,8,8,13 144:10,18 draw 27:23 101:5 127:11,17 9:14,19, 20, 22 145:12,15 driven 117:13 128:8 131:19 9:23 10:6,9,15 district's 6:18 driveway 96:1 effectiveness 10:21 11:13 14:7 7:25 14:10 drop 122:14 47:3 65:13 15:2,11,14 16:11 21:6,14 43:23 dropping 125:24 17:1,2419:9 46:24 59:8 122:12 effects 96:23 20:7,9 21:6,10 62:3,15 64:2 due 7:16 42:9 efficiencies 22:5,8,14,25 69:10 71:2 47:7,15 60:15 116:10 23:3,13 24:18 74:10 79:13 62:23 67:20 efficiently 25:12,17 26:5 87:21 93:12 68:17 24:24 27:2 26:19,21 31:12 93:25 94:13 Dunleer 108:12 effort 47:15 33:11 38:6,7 95:4 97:10,25 108:20 109:11 132:16 42:8,13,17 99:18 113:12 109:14 112:20 egg 28:1 43:10 44:24 133:19139:10 duration 74:3 eight 134:23 45:11 46:3,13 142:5 144:19 either 16:9 E 51:6,24 52:23 districts 57:11 35:11 48:3 56:25 57:8 76:1 121:22 E 2;1 60:19 68:14 62:7,10 66:11 diversity 63:19 earlier 32:23 110:17144:25 66:13 71:16 divide 93:19 55:9 68:14 elaborate 49:9 76:17 78:11 116:19 84:15 101:20 62:17 79:4 80:21 divided 11:9 107:18 114:4,16 election 6:9,10 82:23 85:12 divides 85:13 119:18 120:9 element 24:6 86:9,25 87:2 dividing 116:23 124:9 129:18 33:13 87:9 88:3,16 document 135:17 elements 90:9,25 91:4 86:18 easement 17:11 143:21 91:8,17,21,25 documents 9:11 42:20 82:12 eligible 48:7,22 92:4,15,17 80:22 112:16 88:21 58:14 71:4,7 93:4,22 94:5 doing 28:14 easements 96:2 94:8 96:20 31:25 48:14 12:24 79:16 else1s 117:18 97:1 98:25 56:19 95:18 98:16,22 99:1 embellish 42:2 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 emergencies 7:18 emphasizing 16:6 employed 147:10,12 employee 147:12 encourage 25:12 51:8 55:23 91:8 97:21 encouraged 46:2 ends 19:10 Energy 4:12 7:10 8:15 9:21 9:25 10:24 11:2212:2,4 engaged 110:14 engineer 45:13 91:10 100:25 engineering 16:7,21 17:20 23:14,18 25:2 27:15,23 28:7 28:11,18,19,21 30:8,9 31:24 32:15 33:4,17 45:1 49:8 72:25 73:1,11 77:18 80:15 81:2 83:18 84:4,24 90:3 100:20 102:7 105:7,9 106:9 106:12,20 108:2 120:23 131:4 134:13 136:3 137:9 138:7 engineers 7:9 29:4 31:22 37:10 57:16 90:23 enhance 46:6 62:3,8 enhances 7:24 ensure 6:17 enter 93:20 entering 27:18 enters 66:23 entire 62:25 64:3 86:9 entities 116:9 118:6 128:25 entity 33:6 118:2 128:19 144:8 145:8 Environment 7:9 environmental 6:23 82:11 123:20 envision 85:8 envisions 25:7 equal131:24 132:6 140:11 equally 11:12 equation 119:21 equipped 32:21 equitable 54:16 63:7 70:3 119:16,18,23 129:8 equity 21:2 47:13 91:12 119:21 erosion 15:2,10 39:20 42:7 62:7,11,20,22 62:23 75:17 76:2,5 82:8 106:7,7,16,17 106:23 107:2 109:24 110:11 110:18 111:1,7 111:15,15,17 128:9 140:16 141:1,3,17 ERU 51:16 69:7 69:16,18 72:11 72:13 ERUs 72:14 essentially 127:14 establish 25:5 established 6:11 30:7 56:13 81:10 establishing 49:4 70:3 estimate 16:9 16:15,18,24 17:6,21 20:14 28:13,15,25 32:2 36:13,14 36:24 37:2,5 37:6,8,14,15 37:21,24 50:11 71:19 93:19 98:21133:25 estimated 15:25 16:1,4,7 25:16 60:13 99:5 estimates 23:14 27:17 28:20 28:24 29:17 29:24 33:5 35:7 36:7,10 37:22 44:21 45:2 52:14 73:4,5,19 77:18 81:3 97:25 98:4,5 98:17 130:21 133:19 138:7 estimating 31:6 36:7 45:7 80:15 88:5 estimation 72:24 73:1,12 73:17,20 74:4 et 53:19 evaluate 31:18 54:20 57:16 68:8 70:14 75:7 89:13 126:2 135:15 evaluated 86:9 89:11121:13,16 evaluating 57:4 125:24 evaluation 97:10 evenly 11:9 eventual 42:22 eventually 23:21 exactly 23:15 36:22 82:2 example 62:22 65:8 66:18,25 67:1,3 76:17 118:18 121:17 135:12 examples 48:8 76:1 Excel 84:19 112:13 115:18 excellent 101:14 Exchange 19:18 exhibit 16:3 21:7 42:23 78:22 80:18 86:13 104:5,10 105:22 112:5,7 112:8,19 116:17 131:7 exhibits 48:8 142:22 existing 138:13 exists 48:23 expand 47:16 expect 23:15 43:5 60:17 expectation 37:3,6 expected 35:8 37:24 66:12 expecting 56:4 56:5 expedite 13:7 expend 73:25 expended 26:5 expending 94:5 expenditure 20:17 expenditures 33:10 expensive 109:13 131:21 experience 39:16 57:9 72:23 75:16 75:19 76:19 92:8,10 100:20 123:1 123:11,12,21 125:25 126:1,3 127:19 128:2 128:20 131:21 132:3,12 133:4 experiences 88:17 expert 125:13 expertise 50:14 73:7 expiration 11:14 expired 11:17 expires 147:22 explain 39:17 82:1114:22 119:17 132:10 explaining 36:22 explicit 14:20 extent 11:13,15 35:22 external 24:9 extremely 88:17 136:23 F facilities 8:1 48:20 71:9 facility 29:20 facing 84:5 www.alaris.us 1 ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 fact 15:20,23 114:23 140:7,7 83:18 87:21 92:19 found 108:22 16:3 42:16 fashion 22:7 financially flagging 144:17 137:2 47:23 96:16 faster 26:4 147:13 flexible 91:3 foundational 115:20 128:14 feasible 92:7 financing 18:25 135:14 83:14 130:1,4138:23 February 6:9 39:25 68:8 flies 126:20 four -inch 80:25 140:24 143:22 8:10,25 74:11 flooded 76:18 81:1 144:5 145:7 Federal 8:5 find 91:10 113:16 flooding 15:1 four -tiered 145:25 fee 47:8,9,23 116:10 42:7 62:7,11 53:12 factor 18:12,14 49:21,25 51:11 fine 38:16 70:8 62:20 70:1 fractional 114:19 40:14,15 64:11 51:15 53:1,11 78:16 77:9 82:8 116:20 65:16 88:18 54:3,4,16 55:1 finish 122:10 109:25 110:1 frankly 65:21 factors 43:13 55:5 60:16 firm 137:14 110:12,14,18 frequency 44:7,20 63:20 67:23 firms 137:9 111:2,2,7,8,20 30:25 facts 136:6 69:25 70:17 first 9:5,22 128:9 140:16 front 13:8 17:5 fair 6:17 8:718:1 71:13 16:19 18:6 141:1 43:17 48:17 36:16 63:6,14 feel 77:20133:8 25:3 27:25 floodplain 77:8 56:2 61:22 67:12 70:10,11 145:14 47:8 78:11,22 flow 67:20 86:13 70:13,18,20 feels 83:9 84:17 89:2,18 focus 44:2 front-end 48:15 70:24 74:1 fees 20:3 51:18 104:14,19,20 55:19 59:14 fulfill 2017 85:7,17,24 70:4 72:2,3 106:2,3 focused 45:14 22:11 86:2 87:4,13 138:4 107:20108:5 84:14 full 92:18 107:10 87:15 92:7,21 fe11105:24 108:6,12110:3 focusing 6:22 114:24,25 92:23 93:7,13 120:25 124:5 115:3 133:17 125:6 127:8 140:10 103:15 119:15 143:10 139:9 folks 47:10,25 fully 23:9 133:6 119:17 128:24 felt 103:13,14 fiscal 73:16 84:11 functioning 129:2,8131:2 122:2 91:20 106:1 follow 35:16 126:15 141:20 ferret 83:16 107:6,24 follow-up fund 16:10 17:25 fairly 63:20 figure 37:13 108:3,17 129:14 20:24 21:15 fairness 26:10 57:24 114:14 109:24 110:8 following 10:8 23:4,20 25:19 47:13 117:22 128:10 110:14,15,17 11:10115:14 35:23 42:6 fall 100:18101:9 file 112:13 111:3,4,18 footage 65:1 43:23 53:2 101:18,24 filed 8:14 9:6,12 112:20,21113:1 foregoing 147:7 54:21 62:3 falling 7:15 11:21 41:12 113:1,25 114:1 form 86:22 68:2,14 69:20 100:14,16 filing 32:16 114:13115:21 formal 13:15 120:13 102:23 filled 80:25 120:11,12 format 110:9 funded 53:5 falls 112:3 final 73:19 five 36:19 37:1 112:15 55:1,6 56:23 familiar 15:23 104:17 84:22101:3 formats 109:22 75:20 20:6,9 29:25 finally 9:16 10:6 104:25 141:10 formula 109:18 funding 14:25 30:11 47:18 10:16 143:17 fix 26:22 39:20 forward 21:25 18:18 19:8 59:17 121:18 finance 7:16 45:10 87:22 26:14 27:21 20:21,23,23 132:18 22:9 64:3 87:22 88:15 33:7,15 37:7 21:2,17,18 22:1 far 29:14 56:15 69:2 7412 90:13,21 38:13 40:21 22:2 24:12 56:17 57:18 financed 68:12 93:22 142:4 43:11 61:6,19 28:4 31:13 58:5,13 69:23 financial 19:17 fixed 26:4 90:2 77:24 90:25 32:10,12,13 69:24 74:2 20:1 35:13 94:8 141:4,7 97:1 133:24 34:4 37:7 40:1 77:20101:18 40:12 49:11 fixing 26:2 135:16 40:3,6,10,11 Ibb www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 42:9 43:22 44:3,8,9,10 45:18,23 46:5 46:10 48:6 51:3,24,25 54:1,1,2,7 56:13 61:7 62:6,11,12 67:23 68:4 69:19 75:21 75:23 76:11,14 79:21,24 93:11 105:19 119:5 131:4 135:3 138:13 funds 20:16,25 24:16 25:8,13 26:5,20,22 27:24 34:2 46:1,4 52:3 56:21 73:25 76:9 91:14,18 92:8,16,17 93:3,9,22 94:1,4,5,6 95:7,8 96:17 120:12131:15 142:4143:25 further 7:20 11:19 27:7 33:23 38:4 41:2,4,8 46:17 49:9 57:1 65:23 75:11 78:1 80:1 83:5 95:11,14 97:6 129:10 142:9 147:11 future 23:2 77:6 82:16 83:11,15 FY-22108:9 133:2 23:13 36:10 142:6 84:3 95:3,25 gaining 139:16 54:20 56:18 Gorman 2:4 124:15,15 132:1 garden 7:6 58:5 60:25 12:2,5,8,10,12 132:81312,5 50:17 95:18 77:1 79:15 1214,2015:12 gross 31:1 gardens 55:13 82:12 88:11 17:23 21:5 group 111:18,19 55:25 58:18 96:18 99:6,9 22:8 23:3 34:1 grouping 84:8 101:8,12104:17 36:5 38:6,10 107:23 108:9 gathered 43:11 112:21115:24 38:15 41:5,8,9 110:11,12 Gee 9:3 117:8 118:11,15 Gorman's 97:17 guarantee 42:11 general 4:14 118:23123:12 Goss 2:6,7,13 42:14 90:1,4 6:10 7:2 37:9 132:3 134:8 2:21,22 5:10 90:20 45:15 47:5 goes 34:25 29:11,12 32:17 guess 28:14 60:18 67:3 60:16 81:1 35:14,15 36:1 37:13 52:15 71:9,13 80:20 82:8 98:10,11 49:13,14 69:17 74:6 89:17 125:18 110:3,4,5 111:18 59:20,21 97:6 96:16 101:4 generally 16:18 117:2,8 97:7 113:6,14 136:24 143:17 17:6 34:11 going 20:19 113:16 122:9,13 144:4 92:9 104:15 21:10 23:5,13 122:16,23,24 guidelines 126:3 129:4 23:15 38:3,20 123:4,8,10 86:15 93:16 generate 34:11 43:1 45:21 127:21,23 gut 101:4 43:22 44:3,9 47:6,7,9 49:16 129:14,15,16 guy 145:20 52:2 49:23 50:3 130:12,13 guys 84:19 generated 51:10 5225 136:12 144:14 134:7 138:4 53:9 61:10 government geotechnical 63:22 79:7,8 145:8 42:19 87:24 83:13 87:8 grant 48:1,4,8,11 87:25 88:4,7 90:13,16,20,21 48:22 56:8,12 Gerald 5:10 96:8,19 97:1 56:17,18,19,24 gestation 36:10 99:4,9 107:9 57:4,9,14 58:4 getting 82:18 110:24111:11,14 58:6,8,15,22 105:19 106:17 111:15,16,17 65:13,14 145:15 117:24119:3,8 granted 8:16,22 give 12:6 28:15 131:7,8 133:5 grants 57:5,21 28:20 30:25 139:8 140:17 83:14,21 84:7 36:17 41:16 141:4,6,11 96:2 54:22 56:1 145:11 Gravois 124:23 74:1 80:6 good 18:8 23:14 gray 144:23 105:4 25:11 28:15 great 30:2 60:4 given 29:14 41:25 42:1 greater 7:5 72:23 91:5,6 45:25 46:8 102:16 103:2 91:19 106:21 50:5 66:7 , 8 108:16 116:8 108:19 117:4 83:9 84:6 120:2 130:1 134:22 88:5 89:18,20 greatest 29:1 giving 55:9,19 90:11 94:2 greatly 49:23 56:4 103:13 1071132:17 51:11 70:1 go 14:23 23:6 133:17 139:13 green 58:17 G gain 131:23 132:1,5,7 www.alaris.us H H&S 129:23 half 18:4 34:20 Hallstead 108:6 109:10,13 hamburger 53:20 hand 22:18 131:7 handle 32:22 32:25 73:5 handled 76:20 handling 126:24 happen 108:9 132:8 happened 134:20 happening 67:19 90:10 92:11 107:2 114:12125:19 141:17 ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 happens 34:23 51:23,23 52:1 hurting 95:9 66:15 inadequate happy 105:13 53:1,16 73:17 impair 8:4 15:6 23:13 I hard 82:25 73:19 103:5,6 impervious 24:1,16,17 115:15 124:14 107:19 115:2 idea 34:22 37:9 48:3,4 53:14 27:14 31:3 hardscape 120:8 145:24 50:4 53:17 54:15 60:14,14 inasmuch 84:21,24 highest 101:19 58:6 109:2 60:15 63:9 128:13 hardscaping 108:21,22 138:3 64:9,11,13 incentive 46:24 84:3 124:22 112:25 ideas 58:3 69:25 70:2,17 47:6,20 49:19 hate 28:14 highlighted identification 72:2,16 75:21 50:10 52:2,7 Hawes 5:7 131:11 14:20 40:19 82:16,17,24 55:18,19,23 head 65:6 71:21 highly 48:16 identified 14:12 83:1,11 94:15 55:23 56:1 141:24 highways 145:3 25:15 42:12 12516131:20 57:1 60:7 headed 14:24 historical 99:15 43:1,13 44:25 imperviousn... 65:17 94:13,14 health 125:1,1 history 87:11 67:5 69:4 64:8 94:16 95:21 hear 29:13 88:3 125:22 71:15 89:4 implement 23:1 131:22 132:4 98:22 123:3 Hoelscher 9:2 92:6,22 93:13 56:14 64:17 133:5,7 139:10 heard 31:18 91:2,16 123:8 93:17 94:17 95:23 105:20 140:8 55:8 85:23 144:24 135:5 136:13 implementati... incentives 47:2 95:1106:24 hold 50:2 136:15,18,23 71:12 125:7 47:4 83:8 110:25 111:9 holder 123:9 138:8141:3 implemented 95:8 131:18 hearing 10:19 holders 16:10 identify 25:2,4 48:20 70:23 incentivize 16:20 61:10 Home 7:6 31:11 65:2 71:12 47:25 48:2 hearings 74:15 homebuyer 79:23 85:18 implying 77:5 49:17,23 51:5 heart 83:6 129:2 92:3 important 47:12 51:12 56:13 heavy 90:5 homeowner ii 7:17,24 49:25 58:21 94:22 held 9:11 10:2,11 77:11 iii 7:17 8:1 61:4 65:20 incentivized 147:11 homeowners ILCSR#084-0... 67:22 79:11 49:20 50:4 help 13:7,24 105:9,10,14 147:19 144:10 65:19 25:4 45:17 106:23 127:4 Illinois 147:4,6 importantly incentivizing 46:6 51:7 127:11,15 133:9 imagine 23:21 31:13 47:10 51:2 63:2 94:25 hoped 126:16 immediate impose 63:12 include 13:17 96:8 101:1 hopefully 23:2 23:23 70:24 17:11 25:20,21 102:24109:11 horizon 45:21 impact 26:6,10 imposed 70:10 27:3 72:3 109:12 113:11 horizons 69:11 40:10,12 48:12 imposes 8:7 88:7 119:19 120:4 Homer 102:10 56:20 57:6 63:5,20 included 44:21 helpful 36:21 121:12 63:24 64:4 improve 87:11 71:16 82:10 46:11 48:24 hotels 125:1 67:11,14,25 improvement 86:8 98:19 113:14123:9 hours 11:8,17 69:17 70:16 50:12 121:25 112:21123:21 143:23 144:13 house 77:13 74:23 81:17 improvements 124:23129:19 helps 119:21 95:25 83:10 88:1,19 17:25 21:16 131:17 Henrietta 9:3 households 88:21,23 39:6 76:10 includes 37:20 high 18:20 19:5 143:25 144:12 78:18 79:4,7,9 59:5 82:8 104:16 109:15 hundreds 14:6 145:23 79:15 84:3 including 6:22 110:22 112:24 hundredth impactful 79:21 96:21 35:13 71:17 123:18 115:9 impacting 136:7 imprudent 24:1 74:24124:14 higher 22:22 hurt 95:5,6 impacts 22:21 in -kind 144:1,11 inclusion 98:16 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 i TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 129:24 7:10 8:15 9:21 62:21 65:6 125:19 138:6 justification income 22:15 9:25 10:24 66:17 72:11 138:10 23:12 39:5 22:20 11:22 12:1,4 77:13 involvement justify 15:7 39:9 incorporate industry 63:10 instances 26:15 125:9,22 134:25 35:18 130:24 131:3 institution 55:4 involves 134:4 K incorporated industry-acc... institutions irrelevant 93:2 04:5 7:8 44:20 70:3 55:3 issue 8:18,20 K 1K 1 increase 38:2 inexpensive insurance 8:23 19:19 ke 0 87 1818:1 :1 60:20,24 109:19 125:2 24:22 68:24 y 5 69:3 81:12,14 infiltration 71:18 insure 139:18 73:12 79:24 kind 23:17 82:24 131:18 inflated 48:16 insuring 24:21 82:21 83:21 24:19 27:25 135:20,23 inflationary 35:21 100:9 91:6 129:7 37:25 46:22 increased 17:19,19 44:16 interest 7:15 144:9,23 55:16 56:18 64:25 44:17,20 18:10,10191,7 145:19 146:2 57:3,6,11 58:6 increases influence 34:3,10 39:10 issued 7:16 58:12 68:24 74:24 136:4 138:24 39:14 58:13,21 102:10 69:2 71:7 increasing inform 45:17 68:17 131:23 issues 6:23,23 79:25 82:19 53:18 83:8 information 132:5 6:23 15:2 42:7 83:13,18 129:25 131:18 13:10 17:8 interested 6:21 42:20 52:25 101:23102:2 incredibly 84:5 35:5 40:19 132:24 147:13 53:5,7 62:9 107:8 115:12 incremental 42:18 43:11 intermediary 62:16,20 125:9 28:23 44:18 45:4 36:8 66:22 70:1 kinds 58:14 incur 22:8,11 64:20 87:23 internal 18:20 83:3 84:13,14 59:5,11 111:1 116:23 97:2010817 28:19 37:10 88:4,23 100:9 120:19 incurred 35:22 113:19 115:19 interrogatories 124:1126:22 Kirksville 67:18 informative 21:6 127:20 128:9 124:20 incurring 17:24 143:23 interrupt 19:22 145:13 know 13:8 24:5 18:13,15 55:6 infrastructure 113:4 issuing 40:16 28:7,16 30:3 indebtedness 12:24 39:8 intervene 8:13 64:3 73:10,13 33:1 34:18 8:4 62:4 84:3 8:14 10:17 73:14 35:1 36:16 independent 94:10 96:7 Intervenor 9:16 itemization 45:12,15 47:17 121:11,11 119:22 124:15 9:21,25 10:6,9 76:7 49:7 51:4 52:2 INDEX 3:1 131:13,16 133:6 10:16 11:13 itemized 44:7 53:3 54:14,17 indicate 43:20 initial 28:8,24 investing 68:11 items 113:18 58:10,11,12,16 64:21 86:23 125:6 76:12 iv 8:4 108:6 58:17,18,19,21 87:22 initially 76:24 investment 58:23,25 indicated 17:11 120:23 37:19 39:11,16 J 59:4,13 61:3 43:24 67:24 input 45:17 investments J 4:4 62:20 64:18 74:19 79:14 69:12,12 12:23 13:23 Jefferson 64:23 65:20 indication inputting 55:13 18:21131:14 124:18 67:4,5,17,20 89:20 inspire 131:25 involve 60:7 job 84:6 87:17 68:22,22 individual 31:21 132:7 involved 57:13 88:5 90:23 73:15 74:25 98:20 99:1 inspired 132:21 58:10 75:24 132:17 75:2,3 77:12 135:23 insta1113115 87:7 99:25 John 5:6 78:9 82:23 induce 140:6 installing 55:13 102:25 118:2,5 judgment 102:8 83:7,16 88:10 Industrial 4:12 instance 39:17 123:13 125:8 June 8:17 146:6 89:10 90:24 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 91:1 98:2 lawyer 13:21 limited 47:7,10 local 49:1110:12 104:1,3,4,6,8 99:23 100:4 League 7:3,6 49:19 54:19 111:1,7137:8 104:14 107:8 100:18101:16 LEED 133:3 73:23,23 91:5 localized 109:21111:6 104:15 105:1 legal 9:16 10:6 limits 22:16,18 109:25 110:18 111:22 113:3 105:17,18 10:16 11:4,12,13 Lincoln 124:20 111:20 114:18 115:1,23 106:19 107:14 13:2119:20 line 23:24 located 12:24 115:25 122:25 110:5,16,21 20:3 48:25 6815 66:12,20 123:11124:1 111:13,20,25 legislature 77:2 84:2 79:19 128:2,12 112:23 113:11 34:19 110:3 location 49:2 143:14 114:2,24115:9 Leighton 4:9 link 49:3 Locklear 9:3 looks 85:12,12 115:22 116:4,8 Lemoine 2:11 Lion 11:3 137:11 Locust 4:5 89:11107:13 116:11 117:24 11:2 41:14,15,18 137:15,24 logged 112:12 112:10114:18 119:13 121:10 41:20,25 42:2 138:6,23 long 49:22 128:24 121:10,22 45:25 59:24 Lion's 138:22 52:22 68:7 Loretta 110:5 123:4 127:4 61:12,15,17 Lisa 4:411:3 88:3 92:23 lot 34:3 51:5,16 128:5,11,12,14 66:3 75:12 list 15:9 31:14 120:15 134:8 63:1 65:10,11 128:21135:9 78:2 80:2 32:3 33:18 13611 137:24 65:17,21 68:12 135:10 136:11 lengths 60:4 42:16 45:21 longer 45:23 76:11 78:10 137:3,5 143:5 lengthy 102:11 65:4 80:14 137:19 80:13 87:20 144:3,3,20 Leonard 5:5 82:18 84:18 look 30:15 96:5,6,6,11,21 145:25 6:3 104:12 108:21 67:16 68:9 113:7130:18,19 knowledge let's 21:8 72:7 111:6 112:25 70:14 75:6 lottery 99:10,10 30:6 76:20 91:25 99:6 113:8,22 114:18 77:23 83:17 Louis 1:1,20 4:6 L 122:16 116:1 84:18 85:18 4:11,14,15,17 level 31:2,10 listed 105:23 86:7 87:19 6:5,8,8 7:3,3 L 5:6 9:2 36:13,14 37:14 105:23,25 89:23 97:9,21 7:4,5,6,10 labor 6:23 7:5 37:15,16,20 106:15 108:7 101:18104:13 10:21 84:10 37:23 40:9 43:24 110:18 111:3,24 105:17,22 95:19 96:4,5 laborer 105:11 45:17,22 47:5 115:1142:22 107:17 109:4 121:12,13 lack 42:9 51:3,4 60:20 143:12 109:23 110:2 125:11128:8 Ladue 7:9 64:8 69:20 listing 107:21 111:12 112:19,19 135:8 laid 80:23 72:24 73:11,17 110:7,21112:3 116:17 125:16 10w47:8,9,24 land 77:1 124:15 73:20 77:18 115:15 128:4131:9 49:19 58:13 large 18:5 53:1 80:16 89:18 LITIGATION 136:25 139:15 64:23 110:22 57:25 58:2 103:6,23 1:19 143:9 144:4 136:23 63:18,18 108:15 133:25 little 13:7 26:25 looked 30:18 lower 68:15 124:19 134:1 28:14 30:21 56:16 86:3 104:17109:14 larger 28:25 levels 22:20 31:20,23 42:3 101:7104:22 145:23 68:16 107:15 36:7,9 43:18 47:16 104:23 121:20 lowest 107:8 116:1140:17 lever 73:19 47:20 53:13 123:16 143:11 Istump@lashl... largest 52:23 levies 34:12 53:13 55:9 looking 16:21 4:7 124:4 Lewis 112:9 108:2 127:7 45:2 66:10 lump 98:19 Lashly 4:5 9:16 life 68:7 132:10 144:23 73:3,22 87:7 99:2 11:4 light 47:23 Lloyd 5:11 12:14 90:21 96:12 lumped 100:10 law 4:4,4,9 7:24 liked 132:22 loaded 48:15 98:4 99:17 107:18 laws 8:6 limitation 14:22 loan 19:14,14 100:12 101:3 lunch 122:7,17 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 122:19 Lutheran 7:3 M M 4:14 9:2,3 Macon 124:20 magic 103:7 magnitude 36:8 52:25 73:6 Mahanta 5:9 Mahfood 2:12 2:19 5:9 46:19 46:20 49:12 81:23 85:1 123:2,6 maintain 40:12 55:24 56:3 95:25 131:21 maintained 56:1 maintaining 19:17 22:4,5 maintenance 7:17 51:8 54:6 54:23 55:10 55:20 56:5,5 76:8 111:23 112:6,11 major 21:20 107:1 majority 52:18 making 39:6 40:25 87:9 Malone 4:411:4 manage 27:2 66:21 68:23 managed 24:23 63:3 management 50:16 managing 28:18 48:4 62:9 mandate 29:9 manner 24:8 28:8 33:8 43:9 48:15 55:25 manual 71:10 March 9:4,6,6,9 Marion 9:2 Mark 5:8 market 4:15 89:21 material 43:9 88:1,14139:22 140:5,11 materially 43:7 43:9 materials 37:23 matter 51:9 105:19 matters 11:18,19 146:4 maximize 40:23 maximum 50:8 McDonald's 53:20 mean 18:2 19:22 22:10 37:4 53:20 82:2 96:3,7 100:19,25 108:10 133:23 meaning 27:19 meaningful 51:21 103:21 103:24114:10 114:17 115:6 meaningfuln... 114:8 means 18:18 33:4101:2 121:6 measures 70:23 meeting 1:1 126:18 meetings 106:25 www.alaris.us member 12:9 minimal 17:7 116:9 117:18,23 members 9:15 42:18 45:3 118:9,18,18 10:5,14 11:10 87:23 144:3,6,16 41:19 minimally 71:1 145:5 mentioned minimizing 19:3 MODOT's 66:17 75:20 minute 70:7 118:19 119:18 minutes 16:21 moment 113:4 method 43:22 45:2 98:3 moments 98:8 44:3,9 81:7 miscellaneous Monday 145:12 methodology 82:11 money 19:6,13 31:9,16 63:11 mishear 55:10 20:4,24 27:2 86:11 87:5 misleading 27:23 31:12 97:13 98:1 128:13 34:21,24 48:17 methods 84:9 Missouri 1:20 51:14,16 53:20 89:22 4:6,11,12,15 53:21 60:5 Metro 7:6 7:5,8,10 8:15 68:12 76:9 Metropolitan 1:1 9:21,25 10:24 79:8 81:15 4:10,14,17 6:4 11:2112:1,4 96:20 119:8 10:20 124:18147:4 119:22,25 MICHAEL 2:4 misspoke 55:12 120:11 Mickey 5:5 misstate 78:15 monies 48:12 mics 12:17 misundersta... monitor 61:4 middle 125:12 109:20 Monroe 124:20 MIEC 36:15 mitigate 21:24 month 53:9,10 142:18 40:22 48:17 53:16 141:10 M1EC's 78:11 mitigated morning 41:25 Mike 12:2 76:22 42:1 66:7,8 mile 94:7 mitigation 135:17 million 14:14 70:22 82:9 motivate 50:6 15:7,2416:4 mix 39:25 motives 132:25 17:15,18 18:4 Moberly 124:20 Mound 7:7 23:4,5,8,12 MOCCR#799 move 26:14 23:20 24:4,8 147:19 27:21 33:6,15 24:13 26:18 model 35:18 40:21 61:6 26:25 42:11 37:9 44:19,22 67:24 83:24 42:25 43:2,6 52:16 58:7 91:18 93:6 43:7 44:25 60:12 101:9,22 135:16 45:10,15,20 102:3,6 moved 91:15 60:5,13 90:1 120:25 116:4 90:19 91:6,22 modeled 99:22 moves 43:10 92:1,2,5,14,16 99:24 100:2 109:20 133:24 92:17,18 99:4 modeling 87:8 moving 37:6 99:6,12109:11 124:6 144:8 110:3,5 128:6 modified 87:10 MSD 12:24,25 128:6 87:10 91:3 13:15 18:19,23 mind 18:17 MODOT 37:9 19:16,25 21:7 ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 25:1 26:7,9,12 117:21 118:10 131:14 Nicole 2:18 3:4 26:15 27:1,18 118:15 120:19 necessity 11:3 45:13,13 28:17,22 29:7 130:20 128:15 49:8 67:8 29:8,14,19 MSD-4178:23 need 13:14 17:13 73:7 77:19 30:3 31:4,15 MSD-4816:3 21:22 23:1,23 80:4,5 81:24 31:20,25 32:9 multiple 51:25 25:2 26:2,23 83:18 96:11 32:22 33:2,6 municipal 7:3 28:2,3,9 33:17 97:8 128:1 33:13 35:6,10 125:5 33:18 35:4 138:21 35:17,21,22 municipalities 36:19,20 53:7 nine 100:7 35:23 36:13 25:21 26:12 53:21 67:18 102:10 39:6,7,8,10,16 34:2,5,11,16,19 75:5 96:4 nodding 141:24 39:17,18,25 34:22,23 37:7 103:24 120:2 nominal 72:15 40:12,21 65:3 76:17 128:11 131:22 94:17,21133:9 42:23 49:1 116:9 128:18 131:24132:4,6 139:11,13 140:1 51:22 54:7,11 municipality 136:19 139:19 140:4 54:22 56:3 25:25 34:6,7 142:1144:21 non-commer... 67:5 69:6 34:8 35:9,11 needed 23:10 70:21 72:25 74:18 35:12 116:11 31:12 33:20 non-residential 76:7,13 78:19 118:14,22,25 69:20 92:4 53:14,15 71:4 78:25 79:15 119:3 145:8 131:20134:19 nonprofit 6:24 80:19 84:5 Myers 2:14 3:5 needs 18:24 25:25 85:24,25 4:14 9:2 10:22 31:10,11 35:1 nonreasonable 86:5,11,13 10:22 12:11 36:18 52:5 70:21 89:22 90:7 38:5,7,9 61:16 53:19 57:18 norm 73:7 93:16 96:15,16 61:18,20 69:10 131:15 normal 29:10 98:18,20 99:5 65:23,25 66:1 neighborhood normalized 102:12 103:13 67:25 130:15 95:19 102:21 104:24106:25 130:16,17 neighborhoo... normally 16:8 107:23 109:8 133:12,14 95:19 96:3,6 37:25 38:1 110:10 111:1,9 142:22 143:3 neither 147:9 64:21,23 71:11 111:14112:7 Neuschafer 73:4,18 76:4 116:23 117:1,2 N 2:14 3:5 4:9 North 1:20 4:10 117:22 118:3,6 N 2:1 10:25,25 11:20 7:7 118:8,18119:7 name 6:3,16 11:23,25 12:1 Notary 147:5 121:11124:23 11:25 12:14 41:4,6,10 66:2 note 96:4 126:14 127:4 natural 64:16 66:4,6 75:8 noted 60:11 13115 132:14 nature 17:3 75:10 133:15 notice 7:12 8:10 134:7,24136:8 45:3 47:7 133:1613815 8:19 107:9 136:14,15 68:7,9 96:3 138:16,21 notion 74:6 137:7,16,24 near 68:13 never 90:23 notwithstand... 145:4,4 necessarily new 2718,20 119:7 MSD's 12:22 15:12 73:18 37:19 83:2 November 6:10 13:17 29:10,25 108:8110:16 135:11 number 17:16 30:11 40:2 143:18144:6 newest 134:23 21:8,9 43:1 57:20 63:18 necessary 7:15 nexus 69:5,16 49:1 57:25 104:20 117:7,9 70:17 83:20 70:2 58:2 63:22 63:23 65:9 72:14 73:23 73:23 84:8,15 87:8 90:6 94:23 96:13 98:5,6 99:6,7 99:11,22101:7 103:13 105:5 106:4,6 107:8 111:14 115:16 116:17,20 122:4 124:13 128:9 129:19 129:24 130:5 numbering 115:13 numbers 103:17 103:18110:22 114:9,9,17 115:21130:4 O 1:19147:3,18 objective 14:12 22:2 87:15 92:7103:12 117:10 121:4 141:23 objectives 15:10 18:25 obligated 35:24 39:9,17 obligation 33:7 33:16 56:2 obligations 27:1 34:8 obviously 61:4 66:20 79:6 109:13 113:6 occur 35:3 73:20 90:14 occurred 32:6 occurring 62:22,23 115:22 121:3 October 86:15 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 offer 123:10 operational 11:6 142:24 opine 54:17 offered 142:20 70:9 offhand 99:25 opinion 32:23 office 125:10,17 39:13 50:25 Oh 12:12 51:22 52:21 Ohio 65:8 54:13 56:8 okay 36:1 40:8 58:5 68:3 61:24 62:1,14 72:5 73:6 64:5 65:2,10 81:11 90:19 67:10 82:13 127:18142:3 82:22 86:3 opinions 139:1 94:25 99:14 opportunity 101:11102:16 8:13 9:14 15:17 102:19 103:23 19:8 36:6 104:7 108:4 opposed 44:4 110:10,24 56:10 64:25 111:14112:5,8 113:1114:1 112:12,18 114:7 128:25 115:20 116:16 option 47:25 116:22 117:1,6 options 47:17 118:8,14,21 59:4 119:17 121:17 oral 13:12 130:18 131:2,7 order 33:16 133:12137:15 35:17 36:8 138:15 139:4 37:16 56:5 old 95:19 61:5 62:6 124:20 134:23 66:21 74:13 older 96:6 87:13,14 Oleatha 112:22 107:22120:11 112:23 131:16 OMC1138:11,12 Oregon 51:17 on -the -record organization 10:18 121:11,19,19 once 18:5 60:16 organizations ones 81:10 6:16,19,21,22 105:24 111:23 6:24,25 ongoing 51:7,8 organized 55:22 68:20 115:11 106:8 oriented 102:3 open 82:5 original 20:14 opening 25:23 86:22 operate 19:4 originally 8:17 56:2 100:6 102:6 operation 6:21 123:23 7:17 54:6 58:7 ought 119:12 outcome 79:21 P.M 122:18,20 parks 34:20,25 147:14 146:10 part13:9 17:10 outdated page 16:4 21:8 25:12 26:16 134:16 39:1,23 42:4 29:6 33:21 outline 47:2 43:15 47:1 35:4,13,18 outlined 71:8,14 61:25 64:5 39:7 64:9 130:20 66:9 67:25 75:23 95:17 outreach 55:3 70:9 71:15 120:5 121:13 58:11 59:10,19 113:17131:10 127:2132:25 95:17 132:16 133:18134:6,6 144:18,25 132:20 pagination 145:4,6 outside 67:12 43:18 participants 121:15 128:19 paid 28:22 11:9,12 128:24,25 50:20 participate outstanding Paisner 4:9 10:18 47:14 8:3 42:7 74:14 Palans 2:5,12 126:2 128:19 145:14 2:20 3:6 5:11 participated overall 14:25 12:13,14 27:6 20:20 74:15 33:22 44:8 27:8 39:3 95:17 56:19 78:7 41:22,23,24 participation 85:14 88:16 46:16,18 85:2 58:12 131:25 91:12 94:10 85:3 95:11,13 132:7,22 95:9 100:12 108:1136:12 particular 67:14 134:23 139:15 139:6,7 142:8 86:1 87:7 139:20 140:13 142:10 89:23 121:16 144:7 Palans' 119:18 136:1 139:20 overlay 128:18 pales 53:21 139:24 144:9 overly 68:24 Pam 46:21 146:2 oversight 77:6 83:17 parties 25:19 overwhelmin... Pamela 2:1111:1 26:7 92:16 84:23 41:14 147:10,13 owned 12:25 paragraph partnership 39:24 78:18 12:21 13:16 26:14 35:23 79:4,15 42:4 43:16,20 46:3 owner 56:14 61:24 62:14,15 partnerships 131:25 132:6 63:4,23 64:6 91:19 94:9 owners 25:20 99:20,21 129:5 26:11 63:10 134:8 parts 48:24 79:18 94:17,21 paraphrase 58:16,18 94:22 131:24 97:10 party 25:7,13 132:6 139:11,13 paraphrasing 25:25 26:20 ownership 97:24 34:3 46:1,4,8 76:21 parcel 64:22 91:8 92:1,13 -_...--- 66:15 72:15 93:5 94:1 P parcels 71:16 117 :7,11 118:9 P.0 4:5 Pardon 18:15 120:11135:6 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 142:4 percentages 11421 82:2,10,11,12 37:8,21 60:4 passing 55:16 79:12 piece 58:21 82:13,15 premature password Peres 124:3 67:14 86:24 93:19 32:16 84:20 perform 118:6 pipe 117:16 119:4 104:2 116:18 prepared 9:1 Paul 5:7,11 136:4 piping 124:15 121:9 10:10 12:3 pay 7:15 18:11,19 performed 73:2 place 47:8 48:5 policy 12:22 66:13 134:9 19:4 21:1,3 74:4,22 89:7 49:22 54:18 13:1,4,11,12,15 present 5:4 11:1 22:6 23:25 101:20 108:13 58:22 60:17 25:11 39:11,16 11:20 15:13,16 28:1 35:21 110:7 120:24 76:11139:18 48:2 57:17 17:21 35:11 38:3 49:21 period 11:8 placed 90:6 129:1137:14 41:12 44:23 53:13,19 69:13 20:13 25:6 139:18 pool127:14,16 presentation 72:17 74:14 43:5 49:22 plan 6:7,11,15 portion 40:3 15:18 118:9 119:3,7 68:21 73:25 33:22 68:13 118:12 presented 120:3 128:20 96:18 108:10 planned 14:11 131:11 16:12 26:17 128:22133:5 125:11,15 124:10,24 portions 15:20 95:4 payback 49:22 periods 37:23 planning 15:6 Portland 51:17 pressure 122:14 payer 72:17 permanent 24:1,2 29:21 position 23:10 pretty 47:1 paying 54:8 79:16 31:10 73:11 23:11 62:15 79:20 99:9 59:1 68:18 permit 59:8 81:3 108:15 possibility 102:10107:1 72:19 74:7 permitted 10:18 123:23 35:25 39:22 114:19 123:18 117:7 118:10,14 11:16 54:22 plans 25:2 96:22 prevention 118:18,18,23 perpetuity 69:2 33:17134:9 possible 39:15 48:18 118:25 120:5 person 8:12 please 11:24 39:19 42:8 previous 64:14 payment 50:23 10:3,13 11:7,16 12:12 27:12 51:10 82:18 previously pays 145:4 person's 11:15 32:19 38:12,13 90:7,8 127:10 69:21 PDF 112:15 personally 43:15 61:19 possibly 47:19 price 19:3 people 50:3,6 119:15 66:5 84:1 48:17 22:22 40:22 53:18 80:24 persons 11:20 113:5 122:23 post-constru... prices 18:11 83:24 95:22 41:12 131:11 96:23 pricing 18:23 119:24 120:1 perspective plus 7:11 60:24 potential 29:2 44:10,13 129:19,24 47:13 49:8 80:20 97:21 42:21 79:22 87:20 88:15 130:6 140:6 132:20 pocket 128:7 81:12 83:13 primarily 66:12 people's 83:10 pervious 60:8 point 13:4 21:25 89:8 primary 26:12, percent 21:17,17 64:15 65:1,1 23:1 27:15 potentially 40:14 54:4 37:2,4 39:24 phase 31:6 31:4 41:21 48:15 74:24 principal 7:15 40:6,6 47:8 71:12 81:5 51:19 55:16 practical 24:3 principally 50:22 78:12 108:6 133:20 58:20 61:11 practice 50:17 126:23 78:14,18,24 133:23 62:13 73:16,18 99:19 133:20 prior 27:24 78:25 79:3,14 phased 107:13 73:21 74:8 134:2 32:15 50:15 128:22 114:3 116:7 80:11 81:22 practices 13:22 57:20 131:4 percentage phrasing 132:9 103:23 105:20 predates 86:22 145:16 22:1 28:10 physical 144:11 108:18115:9 preliminary priorities 25:4 72:17,19 78:5 pick 26:16 99:6 120:9 144:23 15:9 16:1,6,18 49:5 135:16 78:6,8 111:17 picture 54:20 145:21 16:24 17:6 prioritization percentage-... 83:19 points 30:22 27:16 29:17 29:14 30:1,9 28:11 pie 82:19,19 30:24 31:1 29:24 36:8 30:12,15 31:8 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 31:16,17 32:4 145:24 33:5,18 36:22 priority-estab... 37:14 40:20 82:14 81:7 82:4,6,7 private 13:18,23 85:7,11,20 14:2 25:20,24 86:14,24,25 26:11 39:13,20 87:4 92:6,15 62:21 66:12,14 92:22,24,25 66:15 67:11,12 93:8,10,15 67:13 78:6,10 96:14,24,25 79:1,5,9,17 99:18 100:7 92:8 143:25 101:10,13,20 144:4 104:22113:2 privilege 91:14 113:23,24 119:22 119:9,12 121:23 probably 47:18 128:3 129:18 49:23 57:7 130:2,4141:21 96:19 111:4 145:20 problem 13:25 prioritizations 32:24,25 93:6 105:5 48:23 73:6 120:13 81:16 83:23 prioritize 31:2 84:13,23 34:13 87:5 85:12,13 93:18 111:16 114:11 100:10 120:3 prioritized 31:14 13 5:11 140:15 48:25 81:10 14016,17,22 86:4,5 89:3 142:4 100:22103:6 problem/solve 107:17 110:17 82:7 136:14 problematic prioritizing 101:14 111:13118:1 problems priority 23:22 30:25 34:4 30:3,7 31:11 45:10 48:20 32:3 91:23 62:7 63:2 106:4 107:5,19 76:10 77:3 108:20 109:14 84:4 90:12,13 109:15,19 90:21 91:1 110:11,13,20 92:19 95:3 112:23,24,25 101:6 105:17 114:8,20 115:2 106:22,23 115:12 116:17 107:2 116:18 116:20 117:2,8 126:12 134:18 119:25 120:8 134:21,24 121:14122:2 135:2,4,7,14 13 6: 2 3 145:23 141:15,17 www.alaris.us procedural 8:11 75:23 76:14 39:12,13,18,19 11:18,19 77:8 88:16 42:16 44:20 proceed 11:24 90:3,25 91:3 48:6 57:8,21 12:12 44:6 92:2 94:13 59:19 67:2,6 proceeding 1:2 95:4,9,17 67:17,18 68:10 6:6 40:2 85:5 99:2 100:1 81:5,16 82:18 147 :7,11 101:17,21 84:6 88:5 proceedings 104:17106:3 93:5,10,20,23 8:14 106:13 114:4 93:24,25 proceeds 24:21 118:9 123:23 94:6 98:8 74:$ 124:2,8,12 99:1101:14 process 26:13 126:11127:3,5 102:4,25 31:10 49:4 127:18 131:3,14 103:19,20,25 74:11 81:6 132:14,19 105:4,8,9,12 82:4,14 133:8,21,23 107:25 108:5 Professional 133:24 134:4 108:7,12,20 147:3 135:14,18 109:10,13,14 program 18:3 139:21 140:8 109:19 110:1,3 20:22 21:3 140:13 110:5,14112:2 22:9 23:4,5 programmed 112:9,20,22 23:20 32:13 107:12,20 112:24 113:3,17 40:4,18,20 115:3 116:13 114:3,4,5,10,10 44:8 45:14,15 programs 21:20 115:6,8,16 45:18 46:11 22:2 24:22,23 116:12,13,24 47:12,12 48:1 25:13 47:7,14 117:5 118:12,13 48:11 49:16,24 48:5,13 50:1,5 118:15,16,20 50:10,21,24 50:5 51:18 118:21,22,23 51:1,25 52:4,6 52:22 55:2 118:24 119:4,5 52:9,10,19,21 57:15 59:10 120;7,12 53:2,24 54:21 68:20,24 71:5 123:22124:9 54:23 56:8,10 71:7 76:4,13,16 124:11125:9 56:12,17,20 84:21 94:16 125:20129:19 56:20,22,24 95:21121:25 129:24 132:15 57:6,9,14,16 125:23,23 132:25 141:3 58:4,6,9,22 126:1131:5 142:5 144:7 59:7,13 60:3,7 139:10 145:4,7 60:7,16,23,24 project 16:22 project-by-pr... 62:5,19 64:3 25:5,6,19,22 134:3 65:13 67:9 26:14 28:11,12 projected 68:2,5,11,23 28:16,21 43:23 69:5,21 69:1,3,10,14 29:25 31:14 projecting 69:20,22 33:4 34:7 16:19 70:19 71:3,10 35:12 36:10 projections 73:3,8,14,22 36:23,23,25 21:14 74:3,8,8,9,11 37:10,20,22 projects 13:18 74:12 75:22 37:25 38:3 14:11,14,20,21 ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 517/2018 15:8,916:19 95:20 96:21 6312,19,21 7:22 8:18 15:1 76:2 80:18 17:15 22:24 96:23 97:11 64:12,12 67:21 22:10 33:10 83:2 84:19 23:16,22,23 98:20 99:22 70:22,25 40:3 42:5,10 92:9 98:23 23:24 24:4,7 99:23 100:2,5 71:24,25 72:3 43:22 44:3,9 98:25 99:2 24:18 25:2,4,8 100:9,10,12,14 72:6 76:20,21 47:4 56:11 101:17110:22 25:15,16,18 100:16,21 89:24 59:14 62:2 112:15 125:14 26:1,4,21,22 101:3,4,7,20 property 12:25 63:5,24 94:13 130:18131:23 27:5,17,21,24 101:24 102:17 13:18,23 14:2 95:10 133:7,10 132:4 138:14 28:2,2,9,19 102:21,22 25:20 26:11 134:14 providers 75:17 28:24 29:1,9 103:3,4,5,14 34:12 39:6,13 proposing 23:3 provides 60:12 29:15,18,20 104:2,12,16,20 39:20 54:8,18 76:8 63:6 29:22,24 105:2,6,14,23 56:14 62:21 propound 11:16 providing 19:1 30:4,7,9,10 105:23,25 63:10 64:21 propounded 47:13 48:11 31:3,4,7,8,12 106:2,6,15 64:22,25 65:1 9:15 10:5,14 52:7 55:3,22 31:18,21 32:1,2 107:5,6,14,15 66:12,14,16,20 protect 18:7 56:3 62:16 32:3,7,22 107:23 108:1,9 67:11,12,13,14 33:16 65:17 70:16 33:5,15,18 108:22110:6,7 67:20 71:20 protected 76:12 106:12 35:7,8,9,23 110:11,12111:1,1 72:8 76:18,23 24:21 84:20 119:23 139:17 36:14,18,19,20 111:3,5,8,13,15 76:25 77:1,2,6 111:25 140:4 144:16 38:2 39:9 111:16,18 77:11,12 78:6 protecting 18:9 provision 8:3 40:20,20 113:23 114:11 78:10,14,17,25 protection provisions 42:6,8,12,25 114:24,25 115:1 79:1,1,5,9,17 23:18 25:1 91:12 43:11,12 44:25 115:10,25 79:19 89:11,14 33:12 74:5,7 prudent 27:22 45:22,24 46:3 116:5,8,10 89:19,21 94:17 protections 32:9,11 33:8 46:6,13 48:7 118:1,3,5,7 94:21,22 28:6 74:2 33:10 35:17 48:25 49:5 119:25 120:14 127:6 131:24 protocols 59:19 40:9 97:15 52:3 53:2 123:13 124:5,7 131:25 132:5,6 provide 7:25 98:13 54:6 58:14 124:14,18,19 139:11,13 9:14 13:6 21:2 prudently 27:2 60:22,23 61:6 124:22,24 proportion 46:5 47:11 35:22 62:4,13 66:11 129:6 130:20 141:10 48:1,6 52:1 public 10:19 66:14,19 67:4 132:13 134:4 proposal 8:12 56:13,18 57:1 12:23 14:2,5 67:10,13,16 134:14135:23 13:17 23:19 62:8 65:4 18:10191 20:2 68:6,9,14,19 136:2,3,6,13 24:9 25:7 66:19 68:14 29:3 34:9 73:5,23 74:12 136:15,18,22 26:17,18 35:19 69:19 71:3 36:24 39:7,10 78:10 79:23 137:1,2,8,11,16 42:23 43:21 76:8 92:9 39:14,20 79:25 80:15 137:17,19,22 43:25 46:24 94:14,17,21 40:23 45:17 81:8 84:16,18 137:25 138:8 54:15,19,19 95:7 98:4 55:3 58:20 84:22 85:6 138:10 139:20 58:25 64:2 100:8101:5 591,10 69:12 86:3,7,8,25 139:24 140:24 68:2 71:8,14 105:5 106:9 69:12 78:12,14 87:5,8,19,21 141:11143:5,6 74:19,25 75:1 133:8 136:8 78:17,25 89:2,2,4,9 143:8,11,15 75:3,5 87:22 139:10,11,13 82:12 84:6 90:2,10 91:7,9 144:13 145:24 90:20 105:7 140:5,10 12813142:16 91:15,19,23 145:25 134:8 144:24 143:2 147:5 92:3,5,9,19 projects' 42:21 proposals provided 15:14 public -private 92:24,25 94:7 properly 56:1 28:17 42:17 44:19,24 91:18,19 94:9 94:8 95:7,10 properties 14:7 proposed 6:14 47:6,24 65:11 129:5 ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES www.alaris.us Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 i TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 pulled 143:10 purpose 9:13 purposes 37:18 38:1 pursue 35:24 71:4 pursued 40:24 58:24 pursuing 58:6 put 26:19 36:25 37:10 77:13 88:11 90:25 98:7,21 102:8 108:15 111:17 114:23 117:22 132:15 137:8 143:6 145:2,3 puts 18:15 145:5 putting 18:17 49:21116:12 Q- qualified 33:2 qualify 127:5 quality 63:2 66:23 82:11 quality -related 66:22 quantity 98:6 quarter 34:20 quasi -public-... 46:2 question 14:25 32:18 36:5,16 39:5,23 43:16 45:13,19 46:21 47:1,17 57:7 61:24 62:14 63:4,23 64:5 64:6,6 65:10 65:11 66:10 67:7 70:9 71:15 78:3,23 80:10 81:25 83:6 84:15 91:11 92:13 94:11,12,12 130:14,15,17 144:1,2,13 96:19 125:7,12 95:2 96:13 133:16 138:17 rankings 101:11 130:14 134:20 97:8,23 99:17 138:20,22 101:12104:13 135:24 137:6,7 100:13114:6 13 9:7 14 2:9,11 107:19 114:8 13 9: 5 142:18 122:25 123:11 142:13,14 rare 88:17 146:4,6 128:1129:3,22 143:22145:17 rate 1:1,2 4:8 rate -making 130:8131:9,9 quick 16:12,13 6:4,11,17,19 7:1 24:20 37:18 131:10 133:18 45:1 84:17 7:12,13,15,20 38:1 134:6 135:18 quicker 92:19 7:21,22 8:9,9 rate -setting 138:19 139:8,9 94:8 120:12 8:11,12,17,18 28:17 139:12 142:14 quickly 46:7 8:20,22,22 ratepayers 8:8 143:18 52:4,6 53:3 9:1,4,7,11,12,15 10:17 20:25 questioning 114:20 9:17,18,24 21:1,3 24:12,16 113:7 quite 50:2 88:2 10:5,9,15 11:2 24:17 26:7,9 questions 2:5,5 88:3 119:19 11:4,6,1112:10 39:18 63:6 2:6,6,7,7,8,8 quote 57:24 14:25 18:18 70:10 74:2,5,7 2:12,12,13,13 19:7,8 20:19 81:12,17 91:6 2:14,14,15,15 R - 20:21,22 21:2 rates 6:13,13,13 2:16,19,19,20 rain 50:17 55:13 21:13,17,19 16:10 21:1,25 2:20,21,21,22 55:25 58:18 22:1,21 23:19 22:3 23:11 3:5,5,6,6,7 84:8,8,13 24:2 26:18 33:9 43:3 9:14 10:4,14 90:5 95:18,25 27:9,15 30:4 53:15 63:14 11:7,10,10,14,17 961 141:9 31:2,4 32:12 70:24 73:2 12:10,11,13,15 rains 90:16 32:14,16 75:18 136:8 27:7,9,13 raise 59:2 33:22 35:19 rating 30:22 29:12 32:20 raised 95:24 36:3 38:11,19 40:13,14,15 33:25 35:15 130:9 40:1,9 41:7,13 108:21109:14 36:2,4 38:5,5 raising 59:14 41:20 42:6,11 112:23,24,25 38:8,10,14,21 ran 18:5 43:21,25 116:20 119:12 41:2,4,8,20,24 range 37:9,12 44:19,21 51:4 121:18143:21 46:17,20,25 116:4 51:23 52:1 144:12 49:14 59:22 ranges 50:15 54:12,14,18,19 ratio 85:20 60:1 61:10,12 ranked 103:5 56:24 58:25 93:18,21 61:16,20,21 109:21110:2 59:2,4,6,7,15 109:12 65:24 66:3,6 112:2 115:16 59:22 60:12 Ratzki 2:13,20 70:5 75:12,13 120:8140:25 61:9 62:3 5:6 59:23 75:15 77:16 ranking 100:14 63:5,13,16,19 60:1 61:8 78:1,4 79:6 100:17,19 63:24 64:9 96:10 97:4,5 80:2,12 81:22 104:25 106:4 65:5 68:15 RC-44131:7 81:23 85:3 106:20 107:20 69:7 70:15 RDP124:5 95:12,14 96:10 109:19 110:12 71:8 72:10,12 reach 62:5 97:7 105:21 110:13,20 72:13 74:9,13 63:25 113:7,10,13 113:23 115:2 74:23,24 75:3 reaching 84:6 114:15 116:15 116:17 120:21 75:6 78:2 reaction 101:4 122:10 127:25 122:4 141:20 80:17 81:21 read 15:23 129:11,16 143:7,16, 21 90:19 95:14 131:11 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 reading 57:23 24:16 43:3 117:1,4,15,16 82:10 110:1,13 remember 78:20134:10 80:19 136:15 reduced 93:4 111:2,7 130:8 120:16 125:14 ready 11:20 136:17 94:1,3 118:13 regionally 126:17,19 41:11 receiving 142:5 147:8 32:21 removed 51:9 realize 126:15 66:23 reducing 82:16 Registered renewal/repl... really 26:15 recess 61:13 82:17 93:11 147:3 68:25 33:20 36:12 122:19 131:13 regulated repeat 93:14 38:20 45:14 recipe 58:9 reduction 47:15 131:25 132:7 report 8:18,21 47:12,24 48:2 recited 13:13 48:2 60:15 regulations 8:6 8:23 29:21 49:20 50:3 recognition 94:14 131:19 82:23 45:2 102:10 51:10,16,18 64:24 reductions regulatory 125:21139:2 58:17,17 67:8 recognized 139:16,19 37:19 54:7 reported 1:18 68:22 83:6 32:23 refer 49:8 59:9,13 82:25 125:17 83:22 84:14 recognizing reference related 8:113:10 Reporter 147:1 84:23 88:10 40:17 12:2213:5 62:4 71:23 147:4,4,5 101:14 105:18 recollection 17:23 81:17 114:4 reports 96:12 105:19 107:16 58:1 86:16 referenced 13:3 116:7 147:9 represent 6:20 117:9 119:13 138:12 80:19 124:9 relating 8:3 12:1 38:19 45:1 132:24,25 recommend references 16:3 relative 147:11 representation 144:10,13 7:13 52:1 referred 15:20 relatively 31:20 6:18 15:24 reason 44:4 54:25 55:5 77:18 108:1 109:16,19 representatio... 51:11 recommenda... referring 13:2 relevant 134:18 19:15 reasonable 8:7 40:5 54:11 13:12 67:2 relocation representative 16:9 22:6 31:9 97:2 102:11 reflect 21:9 42:19 88:18 6:19 32:8,1133:8 recommenda... 33:10 remaining representativ... 33:12 35:17 6:12 87:9 reflected 107:3 78:24 7:2 63:6,14 69:4 recommended reflects 63:11 remains 11:16 represented 69:16 70:2,10 7:20 54:15 refresh 138:12 44:13 94:3 15:3 16:12 18:5 70:11,13,18,20 129:23 137:6 regard 12:15,25 remediate 15:1 21:5 70:24 72:5 record 9:1110:3 55:21 57:8 24:17 26:1,9 request 8:22 74:1 97:15 10:12 12:19 62:24 69:13 26:21 46:3 9:5,8,19,22 98:13 106:16 21:9 38:21 85:10 88:15 91:7,9 92:5 32:14 7811,22 107:6 108:18 60:2 113:12 89:1,9 94:7 95:20 112:13 113:9 reasonably 142:16 regarding 6:12 remediated 143:18144:25 24:23 records 19:17 9:1110:3,12 42:12 93:11 145:12 reasons 58:23 64:21 89:15 42:18 46:24 142:6 requested 8:20 65:19 95:21 recover 33:11 87:24 remediation 69:6 107:11,16116:5 54:16 70:18 region 66:21 14:9,13,17 requesting rebuttal 10:1,3,4 recovery 54:5 88:4 90:12 22:22 23:4 32:12 131:8 63:7 116:14 121:15 24:1 25:13 requests 71:22 recall 30:16,16 redeveloped 128:5,15 26:6,23 27:19 require 25:19 57:20,23,23 77:7,11 region -wide 29:5,6 32:6 40:13 71:23 98:17,18 redoing 116:11 13:25 32:22 33:21 required 7:18 receipt 7:12 reduce 26:8 regional 32:24 40:22 56:10 11:7 21:10,11 receive 84:12 48:15 49:20 32:25 34:4 59:3 90:22 45:21 63:3 received 8:9 76:10 95:8 35:2 68:7 92:4 73:24,24 84:4 www.aiaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/1712018 89:4 123:25 restarts 110:4 86:18 89:3 rule 47:5 score 85:23,25 145:2,3 restate 136:24 97:20137:1 104:24 86:5,12,20 requirement restoration 142:15 rules 8:1111:6 103:19,20 14:15 20:17 66:18 reviewing 31:21 20:1 scored 85:20 22:11 68:16 restoration-ty... revised 146:5 run 19:4 93:12 72:5 67:6 revisions 82:4 run-through scores 104:14 requirements restorations revisit 104:24 104:19,20 104:16,16,18 23:9 42:19,20 67:1 Rich's 142:23 runoff 62:16,22 scoring 86:11 56:17 59:9,9 restrict 71:18 142:24 62:23 63:11 87:7,11 99:23 71:3,13 76:6 restrictions Richard 9:2 64:11,22,24 100:7,8 101:8 88:21 13:21 right 16:16 17:3 64:25 66:22 112:2129:20 requires 6:15 result 56:21 19:15 20:25 66:23 67:20 129:25 130:9 requiring 25:18 68:10 98:9 22:25 30:12 69:17,25 71:1 se 57:14 74:7 rerun 101:9 102:3 39:2 50:8,9 71:19 72:15 89:10 research 28:15 results 52:19 50:20 52:13 95:25 seats 80:24 reside 48:20 resume 61:12 52:14 53:4,8 Russell 5:7 138:19 residential retain 76:21 54:10 55:8 ---- SEC 20:1 6:20 50:10,12 retention 58:1 79:2,10 - S second 9:7 50:21 51:7,20 126:13,24 79:13,23 safe 128:4 32:9 43:20 53:11,11,12,24 127:8,11,12,17 83:24 86:6 sales 34:12,15 64:6 81:25 55:22 56:9 return 122:22 88:12,19 90:14 34:21 75:23 99:20,21,21 57:22 63:13 revenue 14:25 90:17 97:11,24 sampling 115:1 112:25 113:17 63:16,19,21 15:7 18:1819:9 98:1,22 99:7 saw 105:6 131:10 126:8 131:23 20:23 21:2,17 101:25 102:14 125:4 secondly 132:5,14,18 22:1 23:4 102:17 104:5 saying 110:25 143:24 residents 34:9 32:12,14 104:20 107:9 120:7 Securities 19:18 54:23 63:16 33:20 34:11,14 107:22108:25 says 52:16 118:9 Sedgwick 83:1 126:23 40:1,6,10 116:20,24 scale 23:7 125:13 resources 43:23 48:13 117:2,23118:11 102:9,12,13,13 see 37:11 47:21 46:13 91:5 54:4 60:6,20 127:3 129:20 102:20 129:25 52:19 53:22 respect 59:3,15 68:16 69:20 139:18,19 130:2 58:12 73:4 70:21 94:6 69:23 92:10 141:21143:13 schedule 82:6 81:6 83:12 123:1 135:7 revenues 44:10 146:5 91:15 108:16 92:10 96:22 responded 9:9 60:9,12,25 rights 12:25 110:6120:9 99:3 100:6 9:20,23 69:6 rigid 115:12 146:6 101:9 103:5,24 102:12 review 6:11 risk 81:7 82:9,17 scheduled 104:14111:6,6 response 21:5 15:17 30:13 River 124:3 110:8 111:8 112:5 78:23 79:14 31:16 44:18 road 68:17 69:3 schedules 10:11 114:14115:21 113:12145:16 69:10 77:18 77:4116:12 schematic 87:4 115:24 124:8 responses 9:6 80:21,22 86:9 robust 51:18 Schoedel 2:15 129:1 13:9 46:22,23 87:3 123:14 role 85:5,8,10 2:19 5:8 7715 seeing 102:22 responsibility 134:23 141:20 roofs 58:17 77:16,25 80:9 112:3115:12 35:6 124:6 142:16,19,25 room 80:23 80:12 81:20 116:6 responsible 143:2 rough 16:15 135:17 seeking 51:23 22:6 33:3 reviewed 13:9 45:2 scope 29:6 73:2 91:22 124:3 125:10 58:22 77:21 RPR1:19 147:18 78:7 140:22 seen 60:21 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 66:13 76:4 128:24 129:8 85:14 140:15 141:15 specific 17:4 80:17 86:12 setting 9:11 single 53:25 solved 141:4 24:22 36:18 sees 128:13 16:10 23:11 54:1,12 63:15 142:6 59:18 67:1 select 6:16 24:2124:7 sinkhole 88:10 solving 83:23 70:11 98:25 selected 44:5 125:23,25 88:11 some -odd 101:17 102:25 110:13 134:20 sinkholes 88:8 105:22 107:12 114:6 selection seven 138:1 sir 19:22 somebody specifically 113:22 severe 120:4,8 site 48:4 68:25 13:12 32:21,24 14:12 16:18 sell 20:2 77:2 severity 106:22 107:25 112:12 128:13,21 30:13 34:16 Senior 7:3 sewer 1:1 4:14,17 site -specific somewhat 45:9 57:10 71:24 sense 50:11 6:5 7:25 10:21 42:20 88:23 50:7 52:20 73:9 75:17,24 56:12 127:1 18:20 62:3 six 96:19 138:2 71:23 115:6 76:2 114:2 sentence 13:17 108:12 138:4 145:20 115:17 123:13 43:21 82:3 sharing 25:18 size 50:18 soon 81:13 124:17 99:21 139:9 35:18 144:11 64:23 139:19 sooner 53:2 specifications separate 76:7 sheet 18:7,9,16 140:22 128:15 126:14 82:21 83:3 21:15 87:11 sizing 44:10,13 sorry 12:12 specifics 57:24 95:2 143:8,14 Shifrin 102:10 skewed 82:15 19:23 70:21 59:17 separates 121:12 skip 63:22 79:3 112:17 specified 73:25 117:10 shooting 37:16 SKME123:22 115:24 123:3 spectrum 19:11 separation short 23:6 sky 82:19 sort 37:15 55:4 spend 27:22 123:25 139:8 slated 128:14 55:13 58:18 34:24,25 sequencing Shorthand slicing 114:21 70:22 75:23 96:17 99:5 145:23 147:5 slide 108:2 105:3 110:8 117:24 series 10:18 shot 110:25 slow 21:24 115:11 spending serve 6:5 show 28:2 small 124:18 sorting 111:10 34:24 43:24 90:24 side 47:20 smaller 72:19 sorts 55:20 48:17 92:16,17 service 14:5,10 49:11 69:23 107:14 124:19 74:2 111:25 spends 27:2 19:2 21:4 22:1 82:25 83:18 smyers@stlm... sounds 96:11 spent 16:21 22:4 40:14 83:18 128:23 4:16 source 20:16 31:20,22 45:1 52:24 57:10 132:18,19,23 socioeconomic 20:24 46:5 52:14 96:11 60:19 62:8,17 sides 144:5 6:23 48:13 54:1,4 spread 85:19 62:25 63:3,17 significant soil 64:13,14 55:1,7 62:6,11 114:17 63:18 75:17 21:23 27:23 sold 77:12 93:9 94:4 spreadsheet 91:12 94:15 65:16 68:13 solely 24:12 117:7,12 119:5 84:19 104:8 services 1:19 90:1013113 solution 67:23 121:10 111:11,22,24 6:18 7:4 8:1 132:16 141:9 82:2,9 84:24 sources 20:21 115:18 143:10 17:201811 significantly 84:25 85:13 34:5,12 46:8 143:11,12 49:1 62:5 21:24 42:21 93:19 106:9,12 46:10 51:25 Springfield 70:17 76:2 similar 32:4 127:2 54:2,7 93:3 65:8 119:23 125:14 48:5 68:25 solutions 62:16 South 128:7 square 4:10 136:9 144:1,17 75:16 76:2 95:3 105:18 speak 106:25 65:1 94:7 session 61:16 124:7125:16 116:18 125:6 speaking St 1:1,20 4:6,11 sessions 10:19 Similarly 55:1 134:18,22 109:16 4:14,15,17 6:5 set 45:18 59:14 simply 39:5 solve 84:4 95:3 special 6:9 6:8,8 7:2,3,4 69:7 102:6 51:13 76:22 101:6 139:19 34:15 7:5,6,9 10:20 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5117/2018 84:10 95:19 96:4,5 121:12 121:13 125:11 128:7 135:8 stabilization 84:22 staff 28:18,22 29:4 stage 28:25 108:15 stakeholder 25:21,24 26:13 stakeholders 27:4 35:24 standard 13:22 98:21131:3 standards 121:18130:24 standing 22:5 standpoint 24:2,3,20 26:9,11 70:15 128:24 start 12:20 21:23 22:5 53:4 82:1 108:10123:19 started 106:3 123:22 starting 12:16 47:1 107:7 starts 51:20 60:18 state 8:6 26:24 34:19 39:4,24 63:5 64:16 66:11 67:12,15 78:20145:3 147:6 stated 36:12 51:6 66:11 69:8 78:12 136:16,21 statement 7:22 13:1,19 20:1 103:15 statements 42:4 states 12:22 static 43:6 60:6 60:9 stating 85:14 statutory 7:23 stay 43:6 123:18 Staying 13:16 Stein 5:6 step 32:9 46:23 53:3 stepping 100:23 steps 32:5 98:5 98:6 Steve 5:9 125:13,17 stop 74:13 106:10 storm 108:6,12 141:9 stormwater 1:2 6:13 7:14 12:23 13:18,24 14:6,9,1315:10 16:25 17:25 19:2 22:9,22 22:24 23:4,25 24:18 25:8 27:19 29:6,8 29:20 32:6 32:22 33:21 34:16,21,24 34:25 39:7 40:4,17,21 42:5 43:23 45:3 48:4,25 49:25 50:12 51:4,18,24 52:24 53:25 54:3,5,17 56:9 59:3,3,6 62:2,16 63:5 63:24 64:7 67:16,23 80:2,4113:4,5 69:17 70:22 113:6 138:17,18 71:1,13,19 72:1 138:20 139:4 72:23 75:17,19 139:5 143:19 76:3,5 96:15 145:9,10,11 96:18 106:13 146:8 116:12120:2,5 subdivisions 123:13,13,17,21 126:22,25 123:25 124:1,11 subject 20:18 124:14,17 subjective 125:7,23 101:24102:8 126:13,22,25 120:16,22 127:8,11,12,13 121:1 131:16 132:13 subjectivity 136:1 137:13,19 120:24 121:7,8 138:13 139:15 submit 8:13 139:17,21 10:10 113:9 stream 62:22 submitted 8:25 66:18,25 67:6 9:5,7,19,22 streams 66:24 10:112:3 street 1:20 4:5 submitting 10:4 4:15 105:16 10:13 128:23 substantial strength 22:15 98:10 stress 18:15 substantially strip 96:1 21:11 structure 18:23 substantive 18:25 30:23 36:9 30:24 31:14 success 58:9 39:25 40:11 successful 53:12 63:5,20 132:21 64:9 70:15 sufficient 43:22 95:23 125:7 44:10 73:12 structures 71:17 94:14 97:11,13 studied 105:6 130:21 studies 23:18 sugar 122:11,15 28:8 30:9 suggest 61:11 96:15 134:9 suggested 97:3 136:25 suitable 77:7 study 32:15 Suite 4:10 Stump 2:8 3:6 sum 33:14 4:411:3 38:10 98:19 99:2 38:12,14 summarize 40:25 41:3,11 46:22 47:3 41:14 75:11,13 summary 12:16 77:22 78:20 12:21 super 146:1 supplement 46:12 supplements 44:7 support 27:15 32:12 35:12,13 134:7 138:7 supports 134:13 supposed 54:21 sure 33:9 40:25 47:5,18 47:23 49:10 49:12 50:2 60:2 61:2 84:11 89:22 91:13 97:24 100:16,24 104:21105:25 107:16 112:7 114:16116:14 118:25 119:19 121:17 123:15 123:19 135:9 135:10 137:1 138:11 surface 82:16 82:17 83:11 surfaces 71:17 surrebuttal 10:10,12,13 145:1 survey 65:5 Susan 4:14 9:2 10:22 sympathetic 53:17 sympathetica... 117:25 system 12:23 30:1,4,12,15 30:22 31:2,3 31:17 48:24 63:12 69:1 76:12 82:7 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 85:7,11 86:24 134:7 78:7 96:8 36:1 38:4,5,9 27:20 28:5,19 87:2,8 91:23 talked 23:6 117:25 41:3,9,10,19 28:23 29:1,9 92:6,15,21,22 78:5 83:7,17 terribly 30:16 46:16,18 49:12 31:5,19,21,23 93:7,7,12 93:15 94:23 tested 102:7 59:20,21 61:8 31:25 32:11,14 96:14,24,25 102:9 120:15 testified 15:15 61:15 63:4 33:2 35:4,20 99:19 100:2,6 126:12,20 21:14 46:5 65:23,25 66:1 35:20,24 101:15 104:25 talking 14:13 63:23 68:22 75:8,10 77:14 36:16,18 37:7 106:20 113:2 49:4 71:24 69:21 89:1 77:25 80:1,2,9 39:17,22 44:6 113:24114:21 73:10 79:6 91:2,16,20 80:13 81:20 45:12,25 47:5 115:2,12 117:10 82:3,6 83:12 129:7,21 133:11 83:5 85:1,4 48:7,14,19 119:12 120:8 84:7,23 96:15 testify 55:8 94:11 95:12,13 49:18 50:14 120:16,19,21 103:3 113:17 testimony 9:1 96:9 97:4,5 53:3 56:7 120:22121:1,2 114:7 134:3 9:12 10:1,3,4 122:24123:6 58:2,20 65:16 121:7,14,14,16 135:22 140:7 10:10,12,14 125:4 127:21 67:15 68:4,8 121:24 122:4 tangential 11:21 12:3,6,16 127:23 129:10 70:20,23 129:18 134:25 125:9 12:2113:3 129:12 130:12 79:20 80:16 141:19,21,21 tangentially 14:17,19 15:13 130:13 133:12 83:9,20 84:15 143:7,16,21,21 125:8 15:2116:20 133:14 138:15 85:17 86:2 144:1,2 145:21 task 18:6,6 17:5,23 18:1 138:16 139:4,5 88:4 89:3,25 systems 8:1 tax 6:13 7:14 25:14 29:13 142:8,10 143:4 90:3,11,25 72:2121:23 34:12,12,21 30:14 31:8,22 14317145:18 91:16,17 96:3 T 54:9,9,9 35:17 38:24 146:3,9 96:4 100:13 64:21 75:23 41:12,16 42:4 thereabouts 101:18 105:8 table 80:24,25 89:17,20 42:5,10 43:16 104:15 105:17 107:2 110:19,21 taxable 127:6 44:6,24 45:7 thereto 147:13 10714108:18 take 17:1818:19 taxes 34:15 49:15 50:15 thing 18:8,8 108:21111:9 21:11,23 22:14 54:18 51:5 54:15 37:14,15 46:1,1 112:24113:7,8 35:12 43:1 tears 105:11 57:20 60:11 46:8 55:4,14 114:15 115:4,18 45:23 46:23 technical1:8 6:1 61:21,22 65:11 58:18 83:9 117:21,21 119:8 52:22 65:9 9:10,1310:2,8 65:12 66:10 110:15 111:19 119:11,15,18 98:8 107:23 10:11,1312:19 69:8,15 78:9 142:6 120:10 126:12 110:24111:14 5717 100:15 80:5 81:24 things 13:7 127:10,17 111:15,17119:21 100:22 145:16 94:12,18 96:13 38:22 39:4 128:11129:6,8 122:16 123:9 tell 22:24 34:18 97:3,8,18,19 47:10,25 132:13,16,19 taken 15:13 43:16 87:14 98:3,23 99:17 48:21 50:5 134:17,18 31:10 61:13 89:14,15 120:15 122:22 55:20 59:5,11 136:18 138:18 98:7 107:22 102:19 112:6 122:25 129:17 60:19 64:13 139:15,20 110:11115:8 114:18 115:15 130:18,19 131:8 65:20 78:19 140:10,12,14 122:19 133:6 115:20 123:12 133:18 139:9 79:18 85:6 143:19,23,24 135:4,6 147:7 telling 99:11 140:18 142:21 88:8 95:18 144:9,15 takeoff 98:6 120:6 142:23,23,24 96:7 111:10 145:19 146:5 takes 93:22 term 68:13 144:15,19 132:8 thinking 79:11 140:12 85:23 86:1 textbook 36:6 think 12:17 103:17126:11 talent 117:23 terms 14:5 23:11 Thank 11:25 19:24 23:25 127:3 talk 60:4 72:7 40:16 52:20 12:9 27:6,8 24:5,19,20,25 third 9:19 25:7 82:9 105:8 53:21,23 56:9 29:11 32:17 25:1 26:7 25:12,25 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 26:20 34:3 122:8 125:11,13 129:15 130:13 46:1,4,8 91:8 125:15,19 133:1413816 92:1,13,16 126:15,20 139:5 142:10 93:5 94:1 134:17136:4 142:13143:1,4 117:7 ,11 118:8 137:14140:17 144:22 145:10 120:10 135:6 142:11 145:18 146:9 142:3 timeline 49:6 told 18:6 52:10 Thomas 9:3 timely 24:7 129:17 thought 55:8 times 36:12 77:1 Tom 5:6 55:15 110:25 87:11 96:20 top 65:5 71:21 113:22117:6 98:15 100:13 143:6,11 121:6 129:17 104:21,23 total 11:8 16:4 thoughts 35:2 105:6 43:14 84:18 47:3 timing 23:22 91:6 116:18 thousands 14:7 24:6,6 138:3 100:1 today 12:215:21 traffic 117:19,24 three 11:8,17 44:14 45:10 118:10 144:17 73:16 80:20 60:4 83:4,12 145:3,5 80:25 84:21 84:5 90:1 91:2 transcript 15:18 89:4 96:14 91:21 94:24 15:21 16:23 97:21 105:6 99:11109:5 17:11 111:1,8 113:11116:6 transpires ticket 99:10,10 124:8130:19 76:21 tiered 63:13,19 132:14 140:21 treat 128:8 time 7:24,24 141:4 146:5 treatment 29:5 8:6,6 11:8,11,15 Toenjes 2:8,16 true 14:4,4 19:16 11:16 12:11 13:6 3:7 5:5 6:3,3 22:17 46:15 19:3 23:21 10:23 11:1,24 52:16 81:19 25:6 27:10 12:5,9,17 27:8 88:13106:7 31:20,23 27:12 29:11 113:25 37:23 41:9 32:19 33:24 truly 65:1 43:5,13 45:20 35:14 36:2,4 Trustees 6:16 51:9,20 52:14 38:4,9,13 41:3 7:14,21 8:19 52:18 59:18 41:7,11,15,19 8:22 60:8,21 61:6 41:23 46:18 truth 12:6,6,7 62:13 68:21 49:13 59:21 41:16,16,17 69:11 73:17,21 59:25 61:9,15 80:6,6,7 73:25 74:8 61:19 65:25 try 38:21 82:25 81:14 90:11 66:2,5 75:10 113:10 116:10 91:3 95:15 75:14 77:15,23 trying 37:13 96:11,18100:6 78:1,4 80:1,5 70:5 83:16,22 100:11105:3 80:9 81:21 114:14117:22 105:12 106:8 85:2 95:13 129:1140:15 106:17,21,21 96:9 97:5 turn 43:15 66:9 108:1011611 113:5 122:17,21 133:17 117:23 120:15 127:23 129:12 two 54:9 67:16 73:16 78:19 79:17 83:14 85:6 96:13 105:21 type 48:1,22 53:24 63:2 64:24,25 68:5 70:19 72:6 73:5 121:24122:3 125:3 types 48:7 62:13 63:16,21 66:18 71:5,7,9 71:13,24 72:3 105:5 111:8 typewriting 147:8 typical 50:12 52:22 53:22 72:1 80:16 81:4 88:2 121:24 typically 28:10 34:8 72:11 89:15,18 101:16 103:1 103:22105:2 106:23 107:23 108:2 118:2 U Uh-huh 72:9 ultimate 69:23 ultimately 15:4 72:17 93:17 uncertainties 69:22 underneath 124:5,23 understand 31:19 37:4 38:19 42:3 44:23 45:4 49:15 50:8,19 60:3 68:1 74:6,25 79:12 85:4,11 97:9 101:2106:11 109:11,12 113:24114:21 116:16 130:2 145:21 understanding 13:15,20 16:11 16:24 17:9,16 20:12 25:10 27:14,16 29:16 29:19,23 45:6 45:16 50:21 52:11,17 59:8 59:12 69:7,9 71:6,9 87:1 90:11 98:24 99:14 100:21 106:1 107:1,11 108:4 110:19 112:1 125:18 127:19 136:20 137:7,10 138:9 144:14 understood 55:15 119:19 undertake 131:17 undertaken 31:16 undertakes 39:10 undeveloped 71:25 unique 86:25 96:5 unit 98:7 units 60:14 69:24 Unverferth 9:2 up -front 50:23 55:23 upcoming 74:19 updated 134:17 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone:1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 134:19 upstairs 80:24 upstream 139:17 145:22 urgency 25:5 120:2 use 18:3 22:13 26:22 29:3,5 31:2 34:13 40:3 44:2 77:3,6 79:8 83:13 86:1,15 92:18 93:16 94:6 103:8,10 121:22 user 49:25 54:3 70:3 users 6:18,20 6:20 uses 37:10 39:25 86:11 usually 54:3 106:18 utilities 13:22 48:8 51:17 53:25 54:3,5 55:2 57:15 63:15 64:7,10 64:17 72:4,24 73:2,24 75:20 75:22 76:11 utility 14:418:11 19:2,10 21:23 29:9 37:18 39:8 42:19 47:9 54:17 55:6 57:19 60:18 61:4 65:6 68:7,9 73:16 76:24 76:25 88:18 122:3 utility's 48:1 57:15 utilization 121:14 V v 8:7 vacant 64:12,21 valid 137:2 value 14:18 17:21 43:8 49:20 51:19 56:3 57:18 65:14,20 69:11 89:21 98:7 140:4 values 121:3,4 variables 122:1 varies 58:13 various 15:20 19:14 30:4 34:12 63:20 116:5 140:25 vast 52:18 Veatch 11:2 verify 17:13 versus 25:3 55:23 79:1,4 79:18 144:4 view 46:22 47:2 violation 8:2 voted 26:18 voters 6:8 7:6 137:6 w wait 23:1 walk 30:21 want 14:23 25:3 27:21 28:1 33:11 39:4 44:2 45:18 60:2 65:12,22 68:23 69:2 77:10,12 78:15 82:5 91:13 95:22 119:13 119:24 120:1 122:13 123:8 123:17143:8 144:22 ways 47:19 77:2 words 16:15 wanted 55:17 83:8 94:24 25:4 42:17 61:2 126:2 102:2 112:4 67:19 86: 5, 20 128:19 we'll 7 7: 23 140:1 warranties 136:12 work 41:1 47:19 19:15 we're 14:13 52:16 57:15 wasn't 57:24 49:3 61:16 73:15 78:6 57:24 58:2 82:6 83:3,11 79:5 82:25 124:10 125:21 83:22 84:4,14 95:21 98:10 wastewater 90:20,24 123:1,11 124:17 6:13 7:14 19:2 96:15,19 99:4 124:25 125:3 20:8,18,22 104:2,14111:14 134:13 137:24 21:20 22:2 111:15,16,16 138:22,23 28:16,16 29:4 113:1114:20,21 worked 76:15 29:5 30:19 115:1116:6,23 76:16 105:4 39:7 40:18 119:3 124:25 124:13,16 68:1,25 74:15 128:12 140:14 125:5 126:8 74:20,23 75:3 140:15 145:2,2 working 12:18 75:5 123:17,24 we've 38:17 73:8109:18 125:6 136:8,9 52:10 60:3 123:22,24 137:21,25 78:5 83:7 125:5,17 1261 138:23 94:23 111:9 132:13 137:19 water 63:2 124:17125:2 137:21138:2 82:11 84:10 132:14 136:17 works 52:15 95:25 96:5 138:1,1 95:1 105:15,15,16 weeds 123:18 worksheet watershed 49:1 week 90:5 86:14 93:15 62:24,25 141:10 93:20 104:4 67:21 81:1 went 65:7 worse 81:17 124:4,4 105:8 109:2 106:17 141:6,12 watersheds 118:12 143:5,8 worst 102:23 49:2 were-- 72:19 worthwhile way 33:3 35:13 weren't 30:11 22:25 40:22 52:15 96:2 100:5 worthy 40:1 54:16 63:14 102:22 wouldn't 49:18 70:18 76:13 willing 69:13 51:25 54:25 90:24 95:23 120:3 55:5 65:5 99:4 102:3 Wilmington 73:13,18 77:3 107:17109:17 65:6 77:10,12 103:7 10 9:21 110:19 wish 10:17 106:7 108:11 113:11115:14 witness 77:22 119:2,10,17 119:10,23 80:3 138:17 120:21128:23 123:18126:16 witnesses 15:14 129:7 140:5 129:6,8 Women 7:6 write 36:6 130:20133:10 word 42:3 44:2 written 12:3 13:1 140:10 44:5 13:11 130:19 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 wrote 132:2 X X 2:1 yards 105:16 yeah 16:6 20:14 26:6 60:10 61:3 65:4 67:15 104:1 105:25 107:10 111:11 114:2,14 125:10 year 15:7 23:13 23:20 24:4,8 26:25 42:11 43:2 53:9 60:13 65:7 69:1,1 91:20 91:22 98:19 99:5 104:14 104:25 106:1 106:24,24,24 107:7,24 108:3,17 109:24 110:8 110:14,15,17 111:3,4,18 112:20,21,22 113:1,1 114:1,1 114:13115:7 120:11,13 124:11 141:10 year-to-year 68:12 years 17:16 20:20 36:19 36:20 37:1,1 43:1 44:21 48:16,16 50:20,23 73:16,23 86:21 90:14,17 97:1 104:17,25 105:16 107:12 115:3,21 124:14 132:12 134:23 138:1,4141:10 Young 2:18 3:4 11:3 45:13 49:9 67:8 73:7 80:4,8,10 81:22 85:4 122:22130:15 130:15 140:14 142:12 146:3 Z Ziegler 2:5,6 5:11 27:11,13 32:18,20 33:23 link1:19147:3 147:18 08116:4 1 18:21 12:21 13:16 42:4,23 78:23 99:6 1.25109:14 1.5 21:7,9 1.6110:5 1:00122:18 1:14122:20 1:49146:10 10 8:24 9:18 36:20 37:1 39:23 48:16 50:20,23 54:9 64:5 71:15 86:15 92:1,2,5,13,16 92:17 96:19 97:23 102:13 113:18128:22 133:18 10:30 61:13 10:45 61:11,14 100 37:2,4 47:8 84:18 86:3,7 89:2,2 143:6 143:8,11 1181:25 86:21 96:13 99:17 129:23 11101112:9 11th 1:20 12 2:5 9:4 20:20 83:6 86:21 94:12 131:9,9 139:9 12:20122:20 120136:18 127 2:21 129 2:22 130 3:5 133 3:5 135 50:8,19 127:15 138 3:6 139 3:6 142 3:7 15.4112:22,24 113:25 171:9 132:12 18 9:21 70:9 80:24 19 9:7 43:16 190101:13 1954 6:9 1981134:10 1995 86:22 104:23 1st 80:22 2 2 9:24 109:24 128:6 2.25 51:15 53:9 53:10,16,19 60:21 69:7,9 69:16,19 72:11 20 9:20 48:16 64:5,7 71:15 127:14 200101:13 102:13,13 103:7 2000 6:10 2001105:4 123:21 124:10 2006 86:15 93:17 2010134:11 2015 74:16,23 2016105:8 20181:2,9 8:10 8:18,21,24,25 9:4,6,7,9,10 9:18,20,21,23 9:24 10:19 147:22 2019 74:19,24 2024128:14 2114:10 22 9:6 46:25 47:1 104:16 110:14111:18 112:20 113:1 114:1 22.4108:20 112:21 23110:15 111:19 112:22113:1 114:1 23-year 20:13 2350 4:15 239 21:8 24106:1 110:15 111:19 25 40:6 47:17 65:10,12 78:24 107:7 26 8:10,18,25 46:25 27 2:5 9:23 28,000108:25 109:3,15 29 2:6 9:9 3 42:5 3015:7 23:3,8 23:12,19 24:4 24:8,13 26:18 26:25 42:11 43:2 45:20 60:5,13 90:14 90:17,19 91:6 91:22 92:18 97:1 99:4,11 30-J 86:13 93:16 30-K 116:17 30-L 104:10 105:22 112:5 112:19 30-year 45:20 52:10 68:21 73:3,14 30-years 52:18 314)259-2050 4:11 314)621-2939 4:6 314)644-2191 1:21 314)768-6209 4:16 32 2:6 33 2:7 35 2:7 51:19 350 103:8 36 2:8 21:8 3600 4:10 38 2:8 3rd 147:22 4 9:10 15:14,18 16:20 44:24 61:25 66:9 123:12134:6 4.7 20:12,17,24 22:11 412:12 41-F 112:7 45 8:20 21:17 www.alaris.us ALARM LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 5/17/2018 46 2:12 483134:14 136:13,22 138:7 49 2:13 5 5 67:25 110:3 128:5 133:18 5.2109:10 50 50:22 500 67:4 84:18 103:10 105:22 134:4 500-plus 14:14 520 94:7 53 80:19 97:21 136:25 55 21:17 56142:15 56214:14 15:24 16:4 17:15,18 23:5 42:25 43:6,6 44:25 45:10,15 90:1 59 2:13 6 616:4 131:10 600136:18 612:14 631011:20 4:6 63102 4:11 63103 4:15 66 2:14 87107:8,9 69103:20 6901108:12 7 6:10 43:15 63:22,23 70:9 70103:19 70s 126:14 71107:7 7111:20 714 4:5 75 2:15 39:24 40:5 78:12,14 78:17 79:14 77 2:15,16 7th 146:7 8 810:19 39:1 80 2:19 80s 126:14 812:19 114:9 115:5,8 82114:10115:5 115:7 84 2:20 9 9 6:9 47:1 61:24 62:14 63:4,23 66:10 97:8 134:7 9:00 6:2 146:7 900,000 99:8 92 84:20 95102:11 96 2:20 97 2:21 www.alaris.us ALARIS LITIGATION SERVICES Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 I I II